alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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
Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report), I, John Fanelli III, Senior Vice President and 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), 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.



/s/ John Fanelli IIIJohn Fanelli IIISenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Dated: January 13, 2010
# C_2006237EN.01001302.xml

| 30.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/13

---

Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI — Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)

(Case T-221/06)

(2006/C 237/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co (Kommanditgesellschaft) (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L. (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 June 2006 (Case No R571/2005-1), |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 June 2006 (Case No R571/2005-1),

| — | order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘BEBIMIL’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Community and national word mark ‘BLEMIL’ for goods in classes 5 and 29, 6 and 32 respectively.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94. In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward the dissimilarity of the two marks with regards to the relevant consumer circles, as well as the phonetic, visual and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the contested one.

Pleas in law:

---
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 6653

TYQUON A. FEIMSTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LIEUTENANT MORROW, Ms.; SERGEANT WILLIAMS, Ms.; CORPORAL LIGHTFOOT, Mr. , Defendants

- Appellees , and JOE BARRON, Mr., Sheriff , Defendant

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv
- 00046

- LO

- MSN )

Submitted : October 4, 2019 Decided: October 22, 2019

Before KEENAN and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tyquon A. Feimster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tyquon A. Feimster appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action for noncompliance with a court order requiring him to return a form consenting to the collection of installment payments for a filing fee, from his inmate trust account . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Feimster ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Feimster has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; un der Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny Feimster’s motion to appoint counsel . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,651-01

EX P ARTE JHONTAE L EMARK HUDSON, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1416770-A IN THE 208TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was co n v i cted of ag g rava ted robber y with a deadly wea

pon and sentenc ed to twenty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Hudson

v. State , No. 14-16-00581- CR (Tex. App. — Houston [14 Dist.] , Nov. 14, 2017). Applicant filed t h this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffe ctive beca use counsel failed to investiga

te, failed to obtain exc u l p at o ry evidenc e, and failed to call expert witnesses. Applicant has alleg ed facts t hat, i f t rue, might entitle h i m t o relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1 9 8 4 ). Acc ording ly , the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate2

forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Appl icant’s claims. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hearing , it shall determine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel i s ap p o i n t ed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s na

me. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and Appl i ca n t wa s p rejudice d. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The t ri al court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, o rders, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: January

15, 2020 Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

DANIEL PINKNEY,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 236 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
**Exhibit
      23.1**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-118775 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 15, 2007 (which report
      expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
      to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),
      *Share-Based Payments*, and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
      No. 123, *Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation*) appearing in this
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of ViewSonic Corporation for the year ended December
      31, 2006.







DELOITTE
      & TOUCHE LLP


Los
      Angeles, California


March
      15,
      2007
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 10-K for the year
ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") by R.A.B. Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Holdings"), and R.A.B. Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Enterprises" and, together with Holdings, the "Registrant"), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, to his knowledge, 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 financial condition, results of
                  operations and cash flows of the Registrant for the year ended
                  March 31, 2003.

                                              R.A.B. HOLDINGS, INC.


June 24, 2003                                 /s/ Richard A. Bernstein
                                              ------------------------
                                              Richard A. Bernstein
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                                              R.A.B. ENTERPRISES, INC.


June 24, 2003                                 /s/ Richard A. Bernstein
                                              ------------------------
                                              Richard A. Bernstein
                                              Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant, and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that, to his knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, 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 Companys Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Stephen R. LightStephen R. LightPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman (Principal Executive Officer)


November 10, 2008
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Russell J. Howard, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Maxygen, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 28, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Russell J. Howard
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | Russell J. HowardChief Executive Officer
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Aurora, CO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1000

Issued: December 18, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Wendy, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 2, 2020 appellant, through her representative, sought an appeal from a purported 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), which allegedly “denied 

two units of authorization.” The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 20-1000.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.2 

The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of OWCP 

 

1 The representative’s last name was illegible on the AB-1. In all cases in which a representative has been authorized 

in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid 

unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will 

be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may 

constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. 

Demands for payment of fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate 

authorities for investigation.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).
2

issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.3 As there is no final 

adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the 

Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 20-1000 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 20-1000 is dismissed.

Issued: December 18, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date 

of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                               30,893 
<SECURITIES>                                              0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       204,196 
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,140,313 
<PP&E>                                              185,131 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (125,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,216,925 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7,297,445 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               9 
<COMMON>                                                 13 
<OTHER-SE>                                       (6,080,542)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,216,925 
<SALES>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,463,618 
<CGS>                                               288,778 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       288,778 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,546,136 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,359,245 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,730,541)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,730,541)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,730,541)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (25.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (25.22)
                                               


</TABLE>
The GRANDE VILLAS AT THE PRESERVE CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. INDIAN BEACH ACQUISITION LLC and Thomas P. Ryan, Defendants.

No. COA18-218

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 6, 2018

DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10275 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DON CARPENTER, Sheriff; DR., HOLBROOK, Practitioner; FORT WORTH COUNTY JAIL; WAYNE SCOTT, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CV-49-Y

-------------------- June 13, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Taylor, Texas prisoner # 475730, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. There is a question whether Taylor’s notice of appeal is effective, given that his “Motion of Objections” was filed within 10 days of the final judgment and was never expressly ruled upon by the district court, though the court later denied Taylor’s IFP request uponNo. 02-10275 -2- determining that his appeal lacked merit. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. , 784 F.2d 665, 668-69 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); Burt v. Ware , 14 F.3d 256, 259-61 (5th Cir. 1994). We need not remand the case for a ruling on that motion because Taylor has not demonstrated that his appeal is not frivolous and is thus being taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); see also United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Taylor’s IFP motion merely repeats several of the delusional allegations he asserted in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which the district court found to be factually frivolous. Taylor’s IFP motion is DENIED. His motion for the production of documents is DENIED. His appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before November 21, 2005, to be assured of consideration. 

## Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) 

*OMB Number:*                     1513-0043.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Application and Permit to Ship Puerto Rican Spirits to the United States without payment of tax.                 

*Form:*                     TTB form 5110.31.                 

*Description:*                     TTB form 5110.31 is used to allow a person to ship spirits in bulk into the U.S. The form identifies the person in Puerto Rico from where shipments are to be made, the person in the U.S. receiving the spirits, amounts of spirits to be shipped and the bond of the U.S. person to cover taxes on such spirits.                 

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit.                 

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     750 hour.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Frank Foote, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 G. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 927-9347.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395-7316.                 

Michael A. Robinson, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-20956 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-31-P