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 5to1 Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mitchell Chun, 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; and





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





Dated:  May 10, 2011





/s/ Mitchell ChunMitchell Chun

Chief Financial Officer,

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2010320EN.01000101.xml

| 25.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5890 — Heinzel/Europapier)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 320/01

On 7 October 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5890. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5890. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:10-CR-59-SPM/WCS-1

VINCENT R. CLARK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF REFERENCE FOR PLEA PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has been informed that the Defendant in the above-styled case

wishes to enter a guilty plea and consents to having the guilty plea proceedings

conducted by a United States Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.3, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-captioned criminal case, be

referred to the Honorable William C. Sherrill, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge,

to conduct all proceedings required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure incident to a guilty plea and to make a recommendation to the

undersigned concerning acceptance or rejection of the guilty plea.

DONE AND ORDERED this eleventh day of February, 2011.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Oneonta Light and Power Company, Appellant, *v.*Public Service Commission, Second District, et al., Respondents.

*People ex rel. Oneonta L. <& P. Co.*v. *Public Service Commission,*180 App. Div. 32, appeal dismissed.

(Argued October 3, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 3, 1918, which confirmed, on certiorari, a determination of the public service commission, second district, directing the relator to cease from transmitting *625electricity for lighting, heating and power purposes in that portion of the town of Oneonta lying westerly of the city of Oneonta and known as Oneonta Plains.

*J. F. Thompson*for appellant.

*N. P. Willis*for respondents.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
**Exhibit No. 32.1**Form 10-Q        Latin America Ventures, Inc.        File No. 0-53132          

     **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 Latin America Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pierre Galoppi, Chief Executive 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) 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. |   |   |

 

| Dated: August 3, 2009 |   |   | /s/ Pierre Galoppi            |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |   | Pierre Galoppi                |   |   |
|                       |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                       |   |   | and Chief Financial Officer   |   |

 

----

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Latin America Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Latin America Ventures, Inc. furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Ex 10.13 FY15 Director Comp










Exhibit 10.13
FISCAL 2015 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
For the twelve month period ending June 30, 2015, each non-employee director of Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. will receive the following compensation: 
 
	
				
	 
	 
	 
	Retainers of $40,000 for service as a board member; $20,000 for service as a chairman of a board committee; $10,000 for service as a member of a board committee; and $1,200 per board or committee meeting attended in the event that more than twelve of such meetings are held during the period. Directors may irrevocably elect, in advance of each fiscal year, to receive these fees in cash, in common stock of the Company or a combination thereof, or in restricted stock units (“RSUs”). Each director electing to receive fees in RSUs shall at the time of such election also irrevocably select the date of settlement of the RSU. On the settlement date, RSUs may be settled, at the Company’s discretion, in cash or in shares of common stock or a combination thereof.




 
	
				
	 
	 
	 
	An RSU award with a value of $125,000 payable, in the Company’s discretion, in cash or in shares of common stock. The Company will provide for the RSU payment, whether paid in cash or shares of common stock, to be made (in a lump sum if paid in cash) within 30 days following the six-month anniversary of the termination of the director’s board membership. 




In addition, the Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $60,000, and may irrevocably elect, in advance of each fiscal year, to receive this retainer in cash, in common stock of the Company or a combination thereof, or in RSUs. The non-employee members of the Board are also reimbursed for travel, lodging and other reasonable expenses incurred in attending board or committee meetings.
The Board believes that stock ownership by directors is important to align their interests more closely with those of stockholders. The Board has therefore established minimum stock ownership guidelines for non-employee directors which require each director to own Company common stock having a value of at least five times his or her annual cash retainer of $40,000. Each current director has five years from the adoption of this guideline to reach this level of ownership and any new director shall have five years from the date of election to reach this ownership level.
# C_2010099EN.01000602.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5777 — Drägerwerk/Dräger Medical)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 99/06

On 26 March 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5777. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5777. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  FREIGHT  MANAGEMENT  CORP.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Ibrahim Abotaleb, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


                                  /s/ Ibrahim Abotaleb
                                  ----------------------------------------------
Date: October 20, 2008            Ibrahim Abotaleb
                                  President, CEO and principal executive officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF KNOLOGY, INC.

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



The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Knology, Inc. (the Company) that, to his knowledge, this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: November 21, 2003 |  | 
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |
NOTE: 

### This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI(!Circuit

DAVID JACKSON, 

### Plaintiff-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OFVETERANS AFFAIRS AND 

### LYNETTE A. ROFF, DIRECTOR, VA EASTERN COLORADO HCS, 

### Defendants-Appellees.
2012-1680 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofColorado in case no. 10-CV-2596, Judge Marcia S. Krieger. Before NEWMAN, PROST, 

### and WALLACH, 

### CircuitJudges. PER CURIAM.


### ON MOTION ORDER Case: 12-1680 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 12/27/2012DAVID JACKSONV. SHINSEKI 2 The Secretary of Veterans Mfairs moves to dismiss this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction. This appeal concerns an order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing David Jackson's complaint alleging various claims regarding the Privacy Act against the Department ofVeterans Mfairs and denying several motions including leave to replead. Because the district court's jurisdiction did not arise in whole or in part under the laws governing this court's limited appellate jurisdiction, we are without authority to entertain this appeal. Since the United States Court ofAppeals for the Tenth Circuit has already received and docketed the matter, dismissal rather than transfer ofthe case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1631 is appropriate. Accordingly, ITIs ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Each side shallbear its own costs. (3) All other motions are denied as moot. FOR THE COURT /s/Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s26 ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

__

# DE_C_2_1_20_~2_:.__ Case: 12-1680 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 12/27/2012
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11082 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. STEVEN PERRONE, also known as Steven Nicholas Perrone, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-41-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Steven Perrone appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release for pos s e s s i o n with the intent to distribute

m ethamphetamine. Perrone was sentenced above the advisory range to 1 0 months of imprisonment and 50 months of supervised release. He argues that the district court committed procedural error b y f ailing to articulate sufficient reasons for the imposition of the sentence above the advisory range. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June11 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11082 Document: 00511882939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2012No. 11-11082

The plainly unreasonable standard of review applies to r e vocation sentences. United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 496 (2011 )

. Th i s standard is a more deferential standard than the reasonableness standard that applies to sentences imposed upon conviction. Id. Perrone contends that his revocation sentence should be reviewed under the standard of reasonableness set forth in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although Perrone concedes that this argument is foreclosed in light of Miller , he wishes to preserve for review a challenge to this court’s hol di n g in Miller

. By expressly referencing the applicable factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the di s trict court showed its consideration of the nature and circumstanc e s o f Perrone’s supervised release violations and his history and characteristics. See § 3553(a)(1). Additionally, the district court noted that prior attempt s a t rehab ilit ation had proved unsuccessful and expressed its opinion that a sentence of imprisonment was essential in Perrone’s case. Considering the entirety of the

re c o r d, the court’s statements suggest that the court based the revocation sentence u p o n th e nature of the supervised release violations and the number of positive drug tests. Although the court’s comments were brief, the statements reflected that the court “considered the parties’ arguments and [had] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Perrone has not shown that this court’s ability t o r e view the sentence has been affected and therefore does not show that the court committed procedural error. See United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 263-64 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-11082 Document: 00511882939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2012
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERREL THOMAS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No: 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

JORAM PEREZ,

OFFICER BRADSHAW, and

OFFICER BOCCACCIO,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on Doc. 27, the Florida Department of

Corrections’s Notice advising the Court that the forwarding address for Defendant

“Joram Perez” has been provided in confidence to the United States Marshals Service

(“USMS”), together with the summons and service copy of the Complaint, pursuant to

the Court’s Order, Doc. 22. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall prepare a USM-285 form and USMS-1 waiver of service

form for Defendant and forward same to the USMS.

2. Pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the USMS

shall send a copy of the completed summons and complaint (previously

forwarded to the USMS by the Department of Corrections with

Defendant’s address), the USMS-285 and USMS-1 forms, a copy of this

Order, and a prepaid means for returning the signed waiver of service to

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 30 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Defendant Joram Perez through first class mail. The USMS shall mail the

forms to Defendant Joram Perez as soon as possible so that service or

waiver of service can be completed within 120 days from the date of entry

of this order on the docket.

3. If after thirty (30) days from the mailing of the waiver of service forms

and the complaint Defendant Joram Perez has not returned the

waiver of service form (NUSM-1 form), the USMS shall personally

serve Defendant Joram Perez pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon completion of service, the USMS shall

file with the clerk the return and a written statement of all costs incurred of

making such personal service.

4. The clerk shall refer this file to the undersigned if the waiver form is

returned for insufficient address or for similar reason, if service on

Defendant Joram Perez is returned unexecuted, or if the USMS has filed

a statement of costs incurred for making personal service. 

5. Defendant Joram Perez shall have thirty (30) days after service in which

to file a response to the complaint. 

6. No motion for summary judgment shall be filed by any party prior to entry

of an initial scheduling order without permission of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11 day of January 2012. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 30 Filed 01/11/12 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS K. ROGERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv463/LAC/EMT

EDWIN BUSS,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 4, 2011 (Doc. 25). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. Petitioner’s motion for temporary injunction (Doc. 22) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of June, 2011. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00463-LC-EMT Document 29 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. EPLEE

No. 62 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 277.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 April 1978.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CECIL EUGENE BOYKIN, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1-MP-GRJ

NURSE F/N/U MARSH and

SERGEANT F/N/U JERRELLS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the Court on Doc. 39, Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. 

On December 13, 2012, the undersigned granted Defendants’ Joint Motion to Compel

Discovery and ordered Plaintiff to provide answers to interrogatories, responses to

requests to produce, and produce all responsive documents to Defendants by

December 28, 2012. Plaintiff was also ordered to contact counsel for Defendants by

December 21, 2012, and provide available dates for Plaintiff’s deposition. Doc. 38. 

Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the requested discovery and failure to

schedule his deposition within the deadlines established would be grounds for the entry

of sanctions, including but not limited to the dismissal of this case. 

In the instant motion, Defendants represent that Plaintiff has failed to respond to

the requested discovery, has not scheduled his deposition, and has not provided a

telephone number or email address with which to contact him. Doc. 39.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order and

participate in discovery merits the sanction of dismissal. If Plaintiff believes he can
Page 2 of 2

show cause as to why dismissal is not appropriate under these circumstances, he may

do so by way of filing timely objections to this Report and Recommendation.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the motion to

dismiss, Doc. 39, be GRANTED, and that this case be dismissed for failure to comply

with an order of the Court and failure to prosecute. 

IN CHAMBERS this 7 day of January 2013. th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this

report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review

of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 1:11-cv-1-MP -GRJ