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


CERTIFICATION
FURNISHED 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 Image Metrics Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Ryder, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.


Date:
February
14, 2011




/s/ Ronald RyderRonald
      RyderChief
      Financial OfficerImage
      Metrics Inc.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

SHAGUFTA MALIK, * No. 13-595V 

 Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran 

 * 

v. * Filed: March 24, 2016 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award in 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * the amount to which respondent 

 * has not objected. 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

F. John Caldwell, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner; 

Traci Patton, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

 Petitioner, Shagufta Malik, filed an unopposed application for final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter on March 3, 2016. Based 

on discussions with respondent, petitioner requests $25,000.00 for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Respondent did not file an objection. The Court awards this amount. 

 Ms. Malik filed for compensation on August 21, 2013, alleging that the 

influenza vaccine she received on October 15, 2010, caused her to suffer from 

Guillain-Barré syndrome. Petitioner received compensation based upon the 

parties’ stipulation. Decision, issued September 22, 2015. Because petitioner 

received compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

 

 

 1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. 
 Petitioner seeks a total of $25,000.00, in attorneys’ fees and costs for her

counsel. Petitioner did not advance any monies in reimbursable costs in pursuit of 

her claim, pursuant to General Order #9. Respondent did not object to the amount 

requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following: 

 A lump sum of $25,000.00, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, F. John Caldwell, Jr., Esq., of 

 Maglio Christopher and Toale, for attorneys’ fees and other litigation 

 costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

 The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2 

 Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Shannon Proctor, at (202) 

357-6360. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Christian J. Moran 

 Christian J. Moran 

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing 

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 405 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 405

  Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in 
                             North Dakota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2009

 Mr. Pomeroy submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in 
                             North Dakota.

Whereas 47 of the 53 counties in North Dakota have been declared Federal 
        disaster areas;
Whereas wide swaths of North Dakota have faced unprecedented flooding crises, 
        including cities along the Des Lacs, Heart, James, Knife, Missouri, 
        Little Missouri, Park, Pembina, Red, Sheyenne, Souris, and Wild Rice 
        Rivers and Beaver Creek;
Whereas the people of North Dakota have suffered tremendous damage to their 
        homes, livelihoods, and communities;
Whereas the ranchers of North Dakota are estimated to have lost nearly 100,000 
        head of livestock;
Whereas many of the roads and bridges, and much of the other infrastructure, in 
        North Dakota are in need of repair;
Whereas, despite terrible conditions, the people of North Dakota have shown the 
        strength of their shared bond, coming together in large numbers to save 
        their cities, towns, businesses, farms, and ranches;
Whereas stories of exceptional efforts abound, from people filling millions of 
        sandbags on short notice, to people saving lives and effecting rapid 
        emergency evacuations;
Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have provided outstanding leadership 
        and effective service throughout the crisis in North Dakota; and
Whereas the response of the people of North Dakota to the disaster has shown the 
        world how communities can unite, fight, and win in a crisis: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) commends the people of North Dakota for their heroic 
        efforts in fighting the floods in North Dakota;
            (2) commends the many people from around the United States 
        who assisted the people of North Dakota during this time of 
        need;
            (3) expresses appreciation to the officials of the numerous 
        Federal agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency, working on the ground in North Dakota for their 
        consistently rapid, efficient, and effective response to the 
        disaster; and
            (4) continues to stand with the communities of North Dakota 
        in the efforts to recover from the flooding during 2009, and to 
        improve protections against flooding in the future.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF BILL SCHAEFER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT  CERTIFICATION  I, Bill Schaefer, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of Legends Business Group, Inc.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Legends Business Group, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Legends Business Group, Inc. and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Legend Business Group, Inc., including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of Legends Business Groups disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this report any change in Legends Business Groups internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Legends Business Groups most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Legends Business Groups internal control over financial reporting; and  5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Legends Business Groups auditors and of Legends Business Groups board of directors:  (a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Legends Business Groups ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in Legends Business Groups internal control over financial reporting.  Date: December 19, 2013  By: /s/ Bill SchaeferBill Schaefer
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LINDA S. SHENWICK,

Petitioner

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3047

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-1221-12-0096-W-2.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JAMES F. PETERSON, Judicial Watch, Washington, DC, 

argued for petitioner.

 AMELIA LISTER-SOBOTKIN, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also 

represented by ALLISON KIDD-MILLER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., BENJAMIN C. MIZER; F. ALLEN PHAUP II, 

General Services Administration, Washington, DC.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 11, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### Robert M. SNYDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41225.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 25, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 30, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 1, 1989.

J.D. Williamson, Independence, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

*736ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**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 Annual Report of Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB/A for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sandro Natale, 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,
      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.





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




Date:
              December 20, 2007
            
            /s/
              Sandro NataleSandro
                    Natale
                  Chief
                    Executive
                    Officer
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Annual Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol
Yu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2005 and results of operations of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 20, 2006
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 11 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EZEQUIEL REYES-GUTIERREZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 97-2217 (D.C. No. 96-CR-524-SC) (D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Reyes-Gutierrez appeals from his sentence basedupon his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribut e 100 or more grams of methamphetamine. See 21 U.SC. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced him to 87 months of imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release. Mr. Reyes-Gutierrez a sserts that the district court- 2 -

erred in refusing to depart downward from the Guide lines because it mistakenly believed it lacked authority to depart downward, me chanically rejected outrageous conduct and family circumstances as grounds for dep arture, and violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our review of the record indicates the district cou rt clearly understood it had discretion to depart downward but chose not to. As the government notes, the district court allowed and considered Mr. Reyes-Gut ierrez’s proffer and argument before deciding not to grant the request for a down ward departure. See III R. at 3-15. We thus have no jurisdiction to review the d istrict court’s refusal to do so. See United States v. Coddington , 118 F.3d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997). Further, nothing in the record indicates that the district c ourt’s rejection of outrageous conduct and family circumstances was mechanical. S ee United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc. , 871 F.2d 902, 918-19 (10th Cir.), supplemented on reh’g , 881 F.2d 886 (10th Cir. 1989). Finally, even had Mr. R eyes-Gutierrez raised his § 3553(a) argument before the district court, his arg ument is without merit. See United States v. Soto , 918 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir. 1990). The appeal is DISMISSED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF 10-K/A REPORT**

**OF**

**CROWNMEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.**

 

**FORTHE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008**

 

# **1.**               Theundersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc.(“Crown Media Holdings”).  ThisCertification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002.  This Certification accompanies the10-K/A Report of Crown Media Holdings for the year ended December 31,2008.

# ** **

# **2.**               I certifythat such 10-K/A Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Crown Media Holdings.

# ** **

This Certification is executed as of April 30,2009.

 

 
|   | /s/ HENRY S.  SCHLEIFF            |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | Henry S.  Schleiff, President and |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer          |

 

----
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Great West Casualty Company,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JKJ Transport Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08265-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

Order of March 21, 2018. (Doc. 19). The result of the March 21, 2018 order was that 

this case was dismissed and judgment was entered. In the motion for reconsideration, 

counsel makes a factual argument for relief, but does not cite or apply any law. The 

Court’s best guess is that this motion was intended to be a motion for relief from 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) (“On motion and just 

terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment... for 

the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect;....”). 

 As indicated above, one of the basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is excusable 

neglect. Excusable neglect includes omissions caused by carelessness. Pioneer Inv. Servs. 

Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993); see also, Briones v. Riviera 

Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir.1997) (extending the Pioneer standard to Rule 

60(b)(1)). Determining if excusable neglect deserves relief under 60(b)(1) requires 

examining “four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) 

whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Servs., 231 F.3d 1220, 

1223-24 (9th Cir 2000). When examining excusable neglect or a mistake, courts must 

examine at least these four factors. Lemoge v. U.S., 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010). 

 Here, counsel states that his failure to comply with the Federal Rules and failure to 

comply with an order of this Court were due to oversight based on work on other matters. 

(Doc. 19 at 3). However, counsel fails to argue whether this was the product of 

excusable neglect (applying the four factors) or one of the other bases for relief under 

Rule 60(b)(1) (or perhaps counsel brought this motion pursuant to a different rule). 

 On this record, Plaintiff has not shown an entitlement to reconsideration because 

Plaintiff has failed to argue or apply any rule or law. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 19) is denied, without 

prejudice. 

 Dated this 27th day of March, 2018.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Daniel P. Sharkey, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ATMI, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information 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)  designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 14, 2005     /s/ Daniel P. Sharkey Daniel P. Sharkey,