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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blindspot Alert, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J.
Salluzzo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Company.
  By:           /s/ John
R. Williams, Jr.
 John
R. Williams, Jr.
 Chief
Financial Officer
  Dated:
August 14, 2009
  This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Blindspot Alert, Inc. and will be retained
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
No. 84043 

FILED 

JAN 1 0 2022 

ELIZABER1 A. BROWN 

CLERK QF SUPREME COURT 

BY .ql 

PUTYCir RK ir

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ALI SHAHROKHI, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; THE HONORABLE DAWN 

THRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND 

THE HONORABLE LINDA MARIE 

BELL, CHIEF JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

KIZZY BURROW, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION 

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or 

prohibition challenges, for the second time, see Docket No. 83558, a 

September 29, 2021, district court order denying petitioner's motion to 

disqualify Judge Dawn Throne. 

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation,' 

we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention 

is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 

P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the 

burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

1We have reviewed the documents attached to petitioner's emergency 

motion for stay, but no appendix was filed with the writ petition. 

Petitioner's failure to comply with NRAP 21(a)(4) constitutes an additional 

basis on which to deny relief. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4(11 I947A (4541P=4 ,2407,0ogo.5 
Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ 

relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in 

determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.2 

1/4.1e.6,, ) J. 

Silver 

0, 

Cadish 

J. 

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge 

Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Ali Shahrokhi 

Kizzy Burrow 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied 

as moot. 

2
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**Sino      Charter Inc. **

|       | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|                           |                                              |

|   | Matthew                M. Hayden                                          |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Matthew                M. Hayden                                     |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   |

----
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 of
WebSafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 Company.




By:
              /s/ Rowland W. Day,
IIRowland
      W. Day IIChief
      Financial Officer




Dated:
October 7, 2010




This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No.
1 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gregory S. Weishar, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PharMerica Corporation; 

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b. [Intentionally omitted] 

c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 

d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’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 the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

DATE: May 8, 2008
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of IndustrialDistribution Group, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2008, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc., included in the 2007 Annual Report toStockholders of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc.’smanagement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, as towhich the date is March 11, 2008, the financial statement schedule referred to above, whenconsidered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in allmaterial respects the information set forth therein.We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:**•** Registration Statement No. 333-58072 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Industrial DistributionGroup, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan,**•** Registration Statement No. 333-45323 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Industrial DistributionGroup, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan,**•** Registration Statement No. 333-41921 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Industrial DistributionGroup, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan,**•** Registration Statement No. 333-78005 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Industrial DistributionGroup, Inc. Management Incentive Program,**•** Registration Statement No. 333-51851 on Form S-3 pertaining to the Post effective AmendmentNo. 3 on Form S-3 to Form S-1 Registration Statement, and**•** Registration Statement No. 333-85480 on Form S-3 pertaining to the Industrial DistributionGroup, Inc. registration of shares of common stock;of ourreport dated March 11, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofIndustrial Distribution Group, Inc. incorporated herein by reference,our report dated March 11,2008, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of IndustrialDistribution Group, Inc., included herein, and our report included in the preceding paragraph withrespect to the financial statement schedule of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPAtlanta, Georgia
|   | The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                            |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | /s/ Christopher P. Chambers                                     |   |
|   | Christopher P. Chambers                                         |   |
|   | Title: Executive Vice President andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                                [CPC LETTERHEAD]


                               November 17, 1998


Mr. Noel J. Guillama
President and Chief Executive Officer
METROPOLITAN HEALTH NETWORKS
5100 Town Center Circle
Boca Raton, Florida  33486

     Re:  Managed Services Organization Alliance/Joint Venture
          ----------------------------------------------------

Dear Noel:

     It was a pleasure talking with your team today regarding Metropolitan's
Managed Services organization (MSO).  CPC of America, Inc. is desirous after
recent management and board decisions to not pursue acquiring a MSO to meet the
objectives of the Company's business plan.  However, to meet the Company's
business plan as presented to Wall Street and SEC, we must form an alliance and
or joint venture to provide these services to our Company owned treatment
facilities as well as to be able to offer these services to our customers in
their practices.

     I would like to propose the following to you for consideration and
finalization of a brief contract by both parties:

     .  Metropolitan become exclusive provider of MSO services to CPC of
        American owned treatment facilities.

     .  Metropolitan become exclusive provider of MSO services to CPC of America
        for Joint Ventured owned facilities.

     .  Pricing of the MSO to CPC of America, Inc. facilities will be 1% of
        collected revenue below published pricing schedules of Metropolitan.

     .  Metropolitan's MSO services will be promoted by the sales and marketing
        staff of CPC of America, Inc.

     .  CPC of America, Inc. will provide access to Metropolitan for booth space
        at major Cardiology meetings such as the American College of
        Cardiology and American Heart Association meetings.

     .  Metropolitan will promote CPC of America, Inc.'s CPCA2000(TM) counter-
        pulsation care treatment devices.

     .  Term of agreement is for five (5) years with 90-day notices of
        cancellation by either party without cause.

     .  Joint Press Release approved by both parties.
<PAGE>
 
     If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

                                Sincerely,


                                /s/ Rod A. Shipman
                                ------------------
                                Rod A. Shipman
                                President and Chief Executive Officer

     I hereby acknowledge and agree to these terms and conditions set forth in
the above.


--------------------------------------                     --------------------
Mr. Noel J. Guillama                                       Date
President and Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Healthcare Networks, Inc.
**Exhibit 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-136965 onForm S-3 of our reports dated March 9, 2007, relating to i) the consolidated financial statements ofCenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and subsidiaries (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of a newaccounting standard related to conditional asset retirement obligations in 2005), and ii) the consolidated financial statementschedule, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. for theyear ended December 31, 2006.**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**Houston, TexasMarch 9, 2007
**EXHIBIT 10.9**

**FIRST AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THEFIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**, made as of the 1st day of January 2005, by and betweenCOMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Virginia corporation (the “Employer”), and THOMAS R. REYNOLDS (the “Executive”). 

**WHEREAS**, the Employer and the Executive previously entered into a First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2005 (the “Initial Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, the Initial Agreement contained an equation to determine certain performance-based cash, restricted stock and incentive option bonuses;and 

**WHEREAS**, the Employer and the Executive wish to amend the Initial Agreement to correct a mathematical error contained therein.

**NOW, THEREFORE**, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto,the Employer and the Executive hereby amend the Initial Agreement as follows: 

1. The equation contained in Section 4(c) is herebyremoved in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“A + (A * (1-B)) = C” 

2. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(i) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“2,500 + (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 

3. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(ii) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“2,500+ (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 

4. All other portions of the Initial Agreement remain in effect. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, this Agreement has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Employer, byits duly authorized officer, and by the Executive, as of the date first above written. 

 

COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:
 /s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
Name:
 Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
Title:
 Chief Executive Officer
Date:
 2/1/06 /s/ Thomas R. Reynolds Thomas R. Reynolds
Address:
 601 Biotech Drive              Richmond, Virginia 23235
Date:
 2/1/06
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DE DIOS MOLINA

- PENA,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12

- 73642 Agency No. A092

- 300

- 354

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 31, 2017 Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE, ** District Judge.
Juan Molina

- Pena petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and questions of law and constitutional issues de

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, Uni ted States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

novo
. Avila

- Sanchez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2007). We defer to the decision of the BIA unless it acted in a manner that was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” C

aruncho v. INS , 68 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir. 1995). For the reasons announced below, we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review,
and remand to the BIA for clarification

. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Molina

- Pena’s motion to reopen as untimely when he did not file his motion until more than a decade after the deportation order became final and failed to show that he acted with the due diligence required to warrant equitable tolling. See Iturribarria v. INS , 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Molina

- Pena did not meet the timing requirements and is not entitled to equitable tolling, his only remaining avenue for relief was to ask the BIA to reopen his proceedings sua sponte

. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 585 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA has found that its power to reopen sua sponte is limited to “exceptional circumstances,” In Re J

- J

- , 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 1997),
and we ordinarily lack jurisdiction to review such a determination

. See Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 586

- 88. Here, it is unclear whether the BIA applied the “exceptional circumstances”
standard to Molina

- Pena’s claims

. While the BIA briefly referenced the standard in its order, it clearly applied the “gross miscarriage of justice” standard as well.3

The refore, w e remand t o the BIA to clarify the legal standard applied and to
enunciate the reasons for the denial of sua sponte reopening

. As is permitted under the limited scope of review defined in Bonilla , we remand for the “limited purpose” of requiring the agency to state th e reasoning behind its decision , so that we may review for legal or constitutional error. 840 F.3d at 588. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED in part , GRANTED in part, and
REMANDED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BROOKS L. MAULDIN,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-10245

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

JANET NAPOLITANO,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, 

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Presently before the Court is the report issued on April 23, 2009 by Magistrate Judge R.

Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) recommending that this Court dismiss without

prejudice the plaintiff’s complaint for failing to pay the filing fee. Although the magistrate judge’s

report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the

recommendation within ten days of service of the report, no objections have been filed. The parties’

failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith

v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the

failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently

review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the

findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt

# 5] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

2:09-cv-10245-DML-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
-2-

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 13, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on May 13, 2009.

s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI

2:09-cv-10245-DML-RSW Doc # 6 Filed 05/13/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29