alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer th
 /s/ Carol WaldmanName:
    Carol WaldmanTitle:
    Notary Public
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 159 Filed 05/22/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED

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

I, Michael E. Healy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ShoreTel, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ShoreTel, Inc.

Date: February 4, 2011



By:

/s/ Michael E. HealyName:

Michael E. HealyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by referenced into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made on or before or after the date of this Report), irrespective at any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16622]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 051696C]


Marine Mammals; Scientific Research Permit No. 1004 (P595)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service, (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a permit for scientific research 
has been issued to the Whale Conservation Institute, 191 Weston Road, 
Lincoln, MA 01773.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment, in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, 
MA 01930-2298 (508/281-9250).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 28, 1995, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 50189) that a request for a scientific 
research permit had been submitted by the above-named organization. The 
request was to import biopsy samples collected from both dead stranded 
and living, free-ranging animals in the territorial waters of 
Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, over a 2-year 
period. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine 
Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing 
endangered species permits (50 CFR parts 217-227).
    Issuance of this Permit as required by the ESA of 1973 was based on 
a finding that the permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the 
subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and 
policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 21, 1996.
William W. Windom,
Acting Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16622 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16722]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 2, 1996.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered

FY 1998 Budget

    The staff will brief the Commission on issues related to the 
Commission's budget for fiscal year 1998.

    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: June 25, 1996.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16722 Filed 6-26-96; 1:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41717

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANKLIN ANDRES VIDES-ESPINOZA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-322-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Franklin Andres 

Vides-Espinoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vides-Espinoza has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41717 Document: 00514121529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
No. 16-41717

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41717 Document: 00514121529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1211 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, New York, 

as the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1211 RFH

1 SECTION 1. JACK F. KEMP POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 60 School Street, Orchard Park, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jack 

5 F. Kemp Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jack F. Kemp Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate August 4, 2009. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mark JACKSON, a/k/a Anthony Williams, Defendant/Appellant. Mark JACKSON, a/k/a Anthony Williams, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 62945, 65135.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRIST and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, of burglary in the second degree, § 569.170, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to sixteen years of imprisonment. Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief was denied after an evi-dentiary hearing. This is a consolidated appeal by the defendant of both the conviction and denial of motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11214

Summary Calendar

ANGEL HENDERSON,

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

GRAND PRAIRIE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

 Defendant–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-498

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angel Henderson sued her school-district employer claiming violation of 

the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), retaliation under the FMLA, and 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11214 Document: 00512582501 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2014
No. 13-11214

intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for the district, explaining its reasons in a thorough and convincing twenty-four-page opinion.

While Henderson was out on medical leave, she was notified that she 

was to be terminated. She received the full benefit of her medical leave and 

was paid for several more months, through the end of the school year, which 

was the term of her probationary employment contract. The district provided 

reasons for the termination, including that Henderson was conducting a private for-profit business on school time. Before Henderson had gone out on 

medical leave, school personnel were already concerned about her performance, including, inter alia, conflicts with personnel, arriving late and leaving 

early, spending time out of the classroom, and inadequate documentation and 

work logs. 

In its opinion, the district court carefully explained that the district “had 

concerns about plaintiff’s work performance before she requested FMLA leave, 

and that activities of [school] personnel related to plaintiff’s performance while 

she was on FMLA leave were but part of an ongoing inquiry that was prompted 

by [the district’s] concerns relative to plaintiff’s work performance.” The court 

noted the absence of evidence showing a connection between the termination 

and Henderson’s exercise of her FMLA rights.

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons carefully stated by the district court.

2

 Case: 13-11214 Document: 00512582501 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus JEFFREY CLAWSON, a/k/a Jeff Carter, a/k/a Greg Carter, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (2:92-cr-00057; 1:06-cv-00405) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Clawson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Clawson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
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 Minatura Gold (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul R. Dias, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /S/ Paul R. DiasPaul R. DiasChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 17, 2010
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Casey Container Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Martin R Nason,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                            /s/ Martin R Nason
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Martin R Nason
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 12, 2011

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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.
<PAGE>   1
                                Exhibit 10.32



December 17, 1997

M. Charles de Taisne
Secretary General, External Research
Pasteur Merieux Connaught
1541 Av. Marcel Merieux
69280 Marcy L'Etoile
FRANCE

RE:     EXTENDED OPTION TO LEIF

Dear Charles:

In accordance with our Letter Agreement dated October 21, 1997, PMC's option to
LeIF (the "Initial Option"), pursuant to the Option and License Agreement
between Corixa and PMC, (the "Initial Option Agreement"), will expire on
December 24, 1997. Based on our discussions, Corixa agrees that, in the event
PMC does not exercise the Initial Option in any of PMC's disease fields on or
before December 24, 1997, Corixa is willing to grant PMC an additional six (6)
month option to LeIF (the "Extended Option"), effective January 1, 1998 through
June 30, 1998. The Extended Option will be granted by Corixa in order to allow
PMC the opportunity for additional analysis of LeIF in accordance with the
Research Plan (the "Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit A. Under the Plan, PMC
will provide certain research reagents to Corixa for use by Corixa in the LeIF
evaluation to be performed by Corixa under the Plan.

PMC will have the right to exercise the Extended Option in one or more of the
disease fields available to PMC under the Initial Option Agreement by providing
Corixa written notice of exercise on or before June 30, 1998. In the event PMC
exercises the Extended Option, Corixa and PMC shall then enter into a license
agreement on the terms and conditions of the Initial Option Agreement.



<PAGE>   2

If the foregoing is acceptable, please sign as indicated below and return a copy
of this letter to my attention.

Best regards,

For CORIXA CORPORATION


/s/ Mark McDade
--------------------------------------
Mark McDade
Chief Operating Officer

Agreed and Accepted by

PASTEUR MERIEUX Serums & Vaccins S.A.


/s/ Charles de Taisne
--------------------------------------
Charles de Taisne
Secretary General, External Research



                                       -2-
<PAGE>   3

LeIF Rresearch Plan
1998



                                      [xxx]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIANG WANG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16092

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05579-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Qiang Wang appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion to vacate a settlement agreement he entered into with Palo Alto Networks, 

Inc. that resulted in the voluntary dismissal of his patent infringement claim. 

We lack jurisdiction to hear Wang’s appeal on its merits. See 28 U.S.C. 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-16092 

§ 1295(a)(1) (the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has 

exclusive jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court if the jurisdiction of the 

district court was based, “in whole or in part”, on 28 U.S.C. § 1338); Breed v. 

Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001). 

We therefore transfer the entire case to the Federal Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631; Breed, 253 F.3d at 1180; see also Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Mkt. Quest 

Grp. Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]ransfer will generally be in the 

interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to be transferred is frivolous 

or was filed in bad faith.”). The clerk shall transmit all materials lodged with this 

court to the clerk of that court.

TRANSFERRED.
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 Derycz Scientific, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter
Derycz, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.




/s/
      Peter DeryczPeter
      DeryczChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)February
      14, 2011
#### Omer Ray BURNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 40761.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 23, 1989.

Joseph H. Locascio, Sp. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and MANFORD and NUGENT, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James WARD, Appellant. James WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66054.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 30, 1996.

Raymund J. Capelvotich, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD, and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Ward, appeals the judgment of conviction for assault in the second degree, RSMo § 565.060 (1986), and armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1986), entered by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County after a jury trial.1 We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against, the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

1

. As appellant's brief raises no issues pertaining to the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing, his appeal from this judgment is deemed abandoned. *State v. Gaines,*807 S.W.2d 678 n. 1 (Mo.App.E.D.1991).