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 Periodic Report of Sinocom Pharmaceutical, Inc (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the transitional period ended March 31, 2009, (the Report), I, Tuck Wing Pang,  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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  May 14, 2009 /s/ Tuck Wing Pang Chief Financial Officer
Filed 10/18/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2011 ND 195

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff, Appellee

 and Cross-Appellant

v.

Nicholas Baatz, Defendant, Appellant

 and Cross-Appellee

No. 20110043

Appeal from the District Court of Grant County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jonathan R. Byers (argued), Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 600 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0040, and Danny Lee Herbel (appeared), State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 196, Carson, ND 58529, for plaintiff, appellee and cross-appellant.

Joel Lyle Larson (argued), 401 DeMers Avenue, Suite 500, P.O. Box 5849, Grand Forks, ND 58206-5849, for defendant, appellant and cross-appellee.

State v. Baatz

No. 20110043

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Nicholas Baatz appeals the district court’s criminal judgment after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition.  Baatz’s counsel argues insufficient evidence exists to support the conviction.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence.

[¶2]Baatz filed a Rule 24, N.D.R.App.P., supplemental brief arguing his constitutional right to counsel at his preliminary hearing was denied and his appointed counsel was ineffective.  Based on the record, we cannot determine whether Baatz was denied his constitutional right to counsel.  We also cannot conclude that Baatz’s counsel was plainly defective.  We affirm without prejudice to Baatz’s right to raise denial of his constitutional right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel in postconviction proceedings.  See State v. Palmer, 2002 ND 5, ¶ 13, 638 N.W.2d 18 (concluding the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal was without merit, but doing so without prejudice to his right to raise the issue in postconviction proceedings).

[¶3]Baatz filed his appeal after a district court granted postconviction relief allowing an untimely filing of a notice of appeal.  The State cross-appeals, arguing the district court erred by granting Baatz’s application for postconviction relief.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court’s findings of fact  were not clearly erroneous.

[¶4]Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to

Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act), I, Greg G. Jenkins, Executive Vice President of Finance and Business Development and Chief Financial Officer of Syntroleum Corporation (the
Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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: March 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Greg G. Jenkins                                                                     
|                      |  |  |  | Greg G. Jenkins                                                                         
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President of Finance and Business Development and Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.19

                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                 ENRON CORP. 1991 STOCK PLAN
       (As Amended and Restated Effective May 4, 1999)


          WHEREAS, ENRON CORP. (the "Company") and the
     stockholders of the Company have heretofore
     approved and adopted the Enron Corp. 1991 Stock
     Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective May 4,
     1999)(the "Plan"); and

          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the
     Plan to clarify that as a result of the two for
     one stock split of Enron Corp. common stock
     effective August 13, 1999 (the "Stock Split
     Date"), the number of shares of common stock
     available for granting Awards under the Plan have
     increased, as have the number of shares of common
     stock for Awards of Options under Section 5.1 and
     Performance-Based Restricted Stock under Section
     5.2.

          NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as
     follows effective the Stock Split Date:


     1.  Subparagraph (i) under Section 3.1 of the Plan
     is deleted and the following is inserted in its
     place:

          (i)  CALCULATION OF NUMBER OF SHARES
     AVAILABLE.  Subsequent to the August 13, 1999 two
     for one stock split of Enron Corp. common stock
     the number of Shares available for granting Awards
     under the Plan shall be 20 million (20,000,000)
     Shares, subject to adjustment as provided in
     Section 3.2.


     2.  Subparagraph (v) under Section 5.1 of the Plan
     is deleted and the following is inserted in its
     place:

     (v)  Limit on Size of Option Grants.  No
     individual shall be granted Options totaling more
     than 2,000,000 shares in any single calendar year.


     3.  The penultimate sentence of subparagraph (vi)
     under Section 5.2 of the Plan is deleted and the
     following is inserted in its place:

     "Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan,
     no individual shall be granted Awards of
     Restricted Stock under this Section 5.2(vi)
     totaling more than 200,000 Shares in any single
     calendar year."


     4.  Wherever in the Plan reference is made to the
     "Management Committee," such reference is revised
     to mean the Executive Committee of the Company.

     AS AMENDED HEREBY, the Plan is specifically
     ratified and reaffirmed.

     Date:  December 14, 1999      ENRON CORP.


                                   /s/ MARY K. JOYCE
                                   By:  Mary K. Joyce
                                        Vice President,
                                        Corp. Compensation

     ATTEST:


     By: /s/ REBECCA C. CARTER
     Title:
---

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 accompanying Quarterly Report On Form
10-QSB of Resource Group Inc. for the Quarter Ended August 31, 2008, I, Ken
Greenlaw, Chief Financial Officer of Resource Group, Inc. 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 and belief, that:

|1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Period Ended
      August 31, 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 such Quarterly Report on
      Form 10-QSB for the Period Ended August 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Resource Group, Inc.



|By: | /s/ Ken Greenlaw       
|--- | -----------------------
|    | Ken Greenlaw           
|    | Chief Financial Officer



Dated: September 30, 2008

---
Extension Letter


 Exhibit 10.2 
  





 
 December 3, 2015 

Mr. Robert P. Jordheim 
 Executive Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer 
 RTI Surgical, Inc. 

11621 Research Circle 
 Alachua FL 32615 

Dear Mr. Jordheim: 
 Your Executive Transition Agreement
with RTI Surgical, Inc., dated August 29, 2012, is about to expire. This letter will memorialize our agreement that your Executive Transition Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2018, and its terms and conditions shall
otherwise be unchanged. If the above reflects your understanding, please execute a copy of this letter in the place indicated below and return it to me. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	RTI SURGICAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Brian K. Hutchison
		 	Brian K. Hutchison
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer


 Agreed by: 
 /s/ Robert
P. Jordheim 
 Robert P. Jordheim 
 Executive Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer
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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Propell Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas P. Lahey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (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.  /s/ Edward L. BernsteinEdward L. Bernstein
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)  May 15, 2009
Ex. 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act), I, Edward G. Roth, Chief Executive Officer of Syntroleum Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (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: February 7, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Edward G. Roth     
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Edward G. Roth         
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
A94A1593.

#### KENNEDY v. THE STATE.

(472 SE2d 706)

Smith, Judge.

William Kennedy, Jr. was convicted of burglarizing the home of his mother-in-law and estranged wife. In *Kennedy v. State,*215 Ga. App. 232 (450 SE2d 252) (1994), this Court felt constrained to reverse the conviction based upon the Supreme Court’s holding in *Mitchell v. State,*263 Ga. 129, 130-131 (3) (429 SE2d 517) (1993), but suggested that *Mitchell*should be clarified or corrected. 215 Ga. App. at 233-234. *Mitchell’s*holding on the issue of authority to enter the home of an estranged spouse was disapproved by the Supreme Court of Georgia, and this Court’s decision was reversed and remanded to consider the evidence in light of that holding. *State v. Kennedy,*266 Ga. 195 (467 SE2d 493) (1996).

1. Our original judgment in this case is vacated, and the opinion of the Supreme Court is adopted in its place.

2. The remaining question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support Kennedy’s conviction. Construed in favor of the decision of the factfinder, the evidence shows that the police were called to a home on a complaint of attempted rape. Kennedy was separated from his wife, who was living in the home with the victim, her mother and Kennedy’s mother-in-law. The victim, since deceased, was a double amputee and stroke victim with very limited use of her arms. She positively identified Kennedy to the police and to her daughter as the person who entered her bedroom, threw a blanket over her head, and placed his hand on her breast. She believed he was attempting to rape her.

Kennedy gave several statements to the police in which he denied attempting to rape the victim, but stated that he needed money for crack cocaine. He knew the victim had received a disability *801check recently and believed she kept the money in her brassiere. He entered the house by removing a pane of glass from a window and searched the victim for the money. When he was unable to find it, he pushed the victim off the bed and ran out the back door. “An entry into the separate residence of an estranged spouse, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, constitutes burglary.” *State v. Kennedy,*supra at 195-196. Accordingly, there was ample evidence authorizing a rational finder of fact to conclude that Kennedy was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of burglary. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Decided June 21, 1996.

*Mark B. Beberman,*for appellant.

*Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, John T. Garcia, David T. Lock, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Pope, P. J., concur.*
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 Diligent Board Member Services, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Steven P. Ruse, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.
 
 Date:
November 8, 2010
 
 /s/ Steven P. RuseSteven
      P. RuseChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
ABRWH Agenda for August 10-12, Idaho Falls, Idaho

*** Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate ***

AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 71

Shilo Inn Suites Hotel 

780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, ID 83402 

Phone: (208) 523-0088; Fax: (208) 522-7420

Teleconference Phone: 866-659-0537

Participant Code: 9933701

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

NOTE: All times in Mountain Time

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. NIOSH Program Update and 

Program Evaluation 

Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH

Dr. Lewis Wade, NIOSH

9:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. DOL Program Update Mr. Jeffrey L. Kotsch, DOL

10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. DOE Program Update Mr. Glenn Podonsky, DOE

Mr. Greg Lewis, DOE

11:00 a.m. – 11:30 p.m. GE Evendale SEC Petition Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH

Petitioners:

11:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Science Update Dr. James Neton, NIOSH

1:45 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Board Working Time

2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. INL Update Mr. Pete Darnell, NIOSH

3:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. Break

3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Public Comment 

5:00 p.m.* Adjourn

*Note: The public comment period may end before 5:00 p.m., following the last call for 

comments.
ABRWH Agenda for August 10-12, Idaho Falls, Idaho

*** Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate ***

AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 71

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

NOTE: All times in Mountain Time

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Revere Copper and Brass SEC 

Petition (Detroit, MI) 

Mr. Frank Crawford, NIOSH

Petitioners:

9:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Ames Laboratory SEC Petition 

(#00166) – 1955-1960

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH

Petitioners:

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. – 11:30 p.m. Board Working Time Dr. James Melius, Chair

11:30 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. SEC WG Report on 

Consideration of Discrete 

Incidents/Health Endangerment

Dr. James Melius, WG Chair

3:00 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Board Working Time Dr. James Melius, Chair

4:15 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Break

4:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.* Public Comment

6:00 p.m. Adjourn

*Note: The public comment period may end before 6:00 p.m., following the last call for 

comments.
ABRWH Agenda for August 10-12, Idaho Falls, Idaho

*** Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate ***

AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 71

Thursday, August 12, 2010

NOTE: All times in Mountain Time

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 8:45 a.m. SEC Petition Update Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH

8:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Board Working Time Dr. James Melius, Chair

10:00 a.m. Adjourn
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEDERICO LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70804

Agency No. A098-761-845

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. 

Federico Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

FILED

OCT 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for

review and we remand.

In denying Lopez’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Lopez

failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand Lopez’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of

these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In

light of this remand, we do not reach Lopez’s remaining challenges to the agency’s

denial of his withholding of removal claim at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

2 10-70804
EX-31.2 CERTIFICATIONOF 302

 

**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Credex Corporation

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Arunkumar Rajapandy, the ChiefFinancial Officer) of Credex Corporation, certify that:

 

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Credex Corporation;

 

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

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, the results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.     Thesmall business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the issuer and have:

 

(a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this reportany change in the issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     Theissuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

Date: May 14, 2012

 

Credex Corporation

 

By: __/S/ Arunkumar Rajapandy_

Arunkumar Rajapandy,

Chief Financial Officer