alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  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

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital SBIC, L.P. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

      Dated: May 11, 2005

                                                  /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                                  -----------------------------
                                           Allen F. Grum, President of Rand
                                                  Capital Corporation
                                       (equivalent of chief executive officer of
                                               Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)

      Dated: May 11, 2005

                                               /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                               -------------------------------
                                        Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of Rand
                                                 Capital Corporation
                                      (equivalent of chief financial officer of
                                               Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH Insurance Dept. Commissioner

v. Case No. 05-cv-278-SM

 

Employers Insurance of Wausau

O R D E R

The motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 6) is denied. On or

before November 28, 2005, the plaintiff shall file a motion for

entry of judgment in Case No. 05-cv-239-PB. The motion shall

note that the defendant has agreed to the entry of judgment in

the above-referenced action in exchange for the plaintiff’s

agreement not to seek to execute the judgment until the matters

raised in Case No. 05-CV-278-SM are finally resolved. The motion

shall also note that defendant’s counterclaim in Case No. 05-cv239-PB shall be dismissed without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 16, 2005

cc: Doreen F. Connor, Esq.

Andrew R. Levin, Esq.

Natasha Lisman, Esq. 

Peter C.I. Roth, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00278-SM Document 25 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         241,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,626,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                   245,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,838,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,860,851
<PP&E>                                      46,416,378
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,115,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,907,467
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,012,250
<BONDS>                                     17,768,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,056,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,907,467
<SALES>                                     15,313,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,322,644
<CGS>                                       12,018,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,290,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             213,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                819,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                   331,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            487,393
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   487,393
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RESOURCE CONVERSATION GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-5063 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in Case No. 08-CV-768, Judge Susan G. Braden. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

WARREN K. RICH, Rich and Henderson, P.C., of 

Annapolis, Maryland, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With 

him on the brief was ANTHONY G. GORSKI. 

CHRISTOPHER A. BOWEN, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY 

WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and KIRK T. MANHARDT, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 11, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
#### Industrial Commission of Ohio *v.*Weaver.

(No. 24014

Decided June 7, 1933.)

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, *Mr. R. R. Zurmehly*and *Mr. F. E. Galkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James Harrington Boyd,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

This cause was instituted in the common pleas court by the appeal of Mabel Weaver from the order of the Industrial Commission denying her compensation on account of the death of her husband. In that court issues were joined, the commission denying in its answer that the deceased had sustained his injuries in the course of employment and that the death had resulted from the injuries so sustained. Trial was had resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellant. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the case certified to this court for review.

In the trial court the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff; and it is upon that feature that error is predicated by the commission. The trial court had given certain special requests to the jury before argument. In alluding to these requests in the general charge the trial judge said: “In these special requests I have said to you that if you find from k preponderance of all the evidence one way or the other your verdict shall go in the way that you find the preponderance.” This is erroneous for the reason that it contains a suggestion that the verdict should go in favor of the defendant if the jury found the preponderance in its favor. The burden of proof at all times was *19upon the plaintiff, and not upon the defendant. Another error committed by the trial court was this: After the general charge had been given, and during a colloquy between court and counsel, the court said to the jury: “Give to this case a candid and fair consideration and when you return with your verdict have one which simply satisfies yourselves and which you believe to be right.” The use of the last clause in this charge was also unfortunate, since the jury are to be guided, not by what they may believe to be right, but by the preponderating evidence of creditable witnesses. Furthermore, the use of the word “satisfies” was not qualified in any manner; had the court qualified it by saying in effect “satisfies you by a preponderance of the evidence,” or by language of similar import, we would not be inclined to reverse the judgment. But the court used the term without any qualification. *Travelers’ Ins. Co.*v. *Gath,*118 Ohio St., 257, 160 N. E., 710.

Because of the foregoing errors in the charge of the court upon the phase of preponderance, the judgments of the trial court and appellate court will be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, O. J., Day, Allen, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Boxwood Merger Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December
31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel
E.Esters, 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, 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.



Date:
March 25, 2019



| | /s/
    Daniel E. Esters
| | ------------------------
| | Name:                   
| | Title:                  
| |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Mager

v. 04-cv-302-JD

Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 41 .1, as neither an agreement for

judgment nor a stipulation for dismissal has been filed, this case is herewith dismissed with

prejudice .

SO ORDERED.

October 2, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judg e

cc: Alan Cantor, Esq.

Charles Donahue, Esq .

David Angueira, Esq .

Edward Swartz, Esq .

David Miles Gould, Esq .

Emily Rice, Esq.

Case 1:04-cv-00302-JD Document 55 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 71 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.71

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Amending title 36, United States Code, to designate September 11 as 
                              Patriot Day.

Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian 
  aircraft, crashing two of them into the towers of the World Trade 
  Center in New York City, and a third into the Pentagon outside 
  Washington, D.C.;

Whereas the fourth hijacked aircraft crashed in southwestern 
  Pennsylvania after passengers tried to take control of the aircraft 
  in order to prevent the hijackers from crashing the aircraft into an 
  important symbol of democracy and freedom;

Whereas these attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist attacks ever 
  launched against the United States, killing thousands of innocent 
  people; and

Whereas in the aftermath of the attacks the people of the United States 
  stood united in providing support for those in need: Now, therefore, 
  be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 11 AS PATRIOT DAY.

    Chapter 1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new section:

``Sec. 144. Patriot Day

    ``(a) Designation.--September 11 is Patriot Day.
    ``(b) Proclamation.--The President is requested to issue each year 
a proclamation calling on--
        ``(1) State and local governments and the people of the United 
    States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate programs and 
    activities;
        ``(2) all departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the 
    United States and interested organizations and individuals to 
    display the flag of the United States at halfstaff on Patriot Day 
    in honor of the individuals who lost their lives as a result of the 
    terrorist attacks against the United States that occurred on 
    September 11, 2001; and
        ``(3) the people of the United States to observe a moment of 
    silence on Patriot Day in honor of the individuals who lost their 
    lives as a result of the terrorist attacks against the United 
    States that occurred on September 11, 2001.''.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

    The table of contents for chapter 1 of title 36, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``144. Patriot Day.''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.10    
    


Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

40 Landsdowne Street

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

617.679.7000

www.millennium.com 


Confidential
Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote such omissions. 


September
17, 2004 


Paul
Feirstein

ACS Sales and Marketing

Schering Corporation

2000 Galloping Hill Road

Kenilworth, NJ 07033 



	Re:
	Additional
Field Force Agreement — Amendment to Extend the Decision to Renew Joint Funding for 2005 




Dear
Paul: 


        Schering
and Millennium are parties to the Addendum to the Collaboration Agreement among Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Schering Corporation and Schering-Plough, Ltd., effective June
1, 2003 ("Additional Field Force Agreement"). Any defined terms used herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Additional Field Force Agreement. Pursuant to a discussion at the quarterly JSC
meeting on September 10, the JSC agreed to the following amendments to the Additional Field Force
Agreement in connection with the deadline to renew joint funding obligations for 2005 pursuant to Sections 4.1 and 2.4 of the Additional Field Force Agreement: 



	(1)
	To
extend the date for the 2005 renewal decision from September 30, 2004 to not later than [**].



	(2)
	In
the event the JSC elects not to renew the Additional Field Force Agreement for 2005, the sixty (60) day period referred to in Section 4.4 of the Additional Field Force Agreement
shall be reduced to thirty (30) days after such JSC decision.



	(3)
	In
the event the JSC elects to renew the Additional Field Force Agreement for 2005, the annual budget for Additional Field Force Expenses for 2005 to be agreed to under Section 3.4.2
of the Additional Field Force Agreement, shall be agreed upon by the JSC within thirty (30) days after such decision. 




        All
other terms and conditions of the Additional Field Force Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 



        Please
indicate your agreement to this Amendment by signing below and returning one fully executed original to my attention. 


Regards, 



	/s/ Grant Bogle
 Grant Bogle

VP, Sales & Marketingds	 	 	 





AGREED:



Schering
Corporation

    (for itself and on behalf of Schering-Plough Ltd.) 



	By:	/s/ Paul Feirstein
	 
	

Name(print):	

Paul Feirstein
	

 
	

Title:	

Vice President, ACS Sales & Marketing
	

 
	

Date:	

9/24/04
	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.10
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Project No. 2277-023] 

On September 18, 2008, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff, together with representatives of AmerenUE (the applicant) and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, will conduct a site visit of the Taum Sauk Pumped Storage Project and a tour of Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park. The purposes of the one-day site visit and tour are to allow FERC staff working on the relicensing to (a) examine the project and its setting, including the adjacent Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park, and (b) weigh the scope of the applicant's proposed studies and additional study requests filed in response to the Commission's public notice issued July 2, 2008. 

The site visit for the Taum Sauk Project will begin at 8 a.m. (CDT), with participants meeting at the gate to the Taum Sauk Plant. The tour of Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park will begin at 2 p.m. Participants planning to attend the tour of the park should meet at the project office located in Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park at the Goggins Mountain trailhead. All interested individuals, organizations, and agencies are invited to attend one or both of the site visits. All participants are responsible for their own transportation to the project and park, as well as throughout the day. Anyone with questions about the site visit should contact Allan Creamer of the FERC at (202) 502-8365. Anyone wishing to attend the site visit for the Taum Sauk Project should contact Mr. Michael Lobbig of AmerenUE at (314) 957-3427 to make the necessary arrangements for access to the project site. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-20864 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7157 

To reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2022 

Mr. GOSAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Yuma Crossing Na5 tional Heritage Area Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE YUMA CROSSING NA7 TIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

8 Section 7 of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage 

9 Area Act of 2000 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 

10 106–319; 114 Stat. 1284; 128 Stat. 3802) is amended 

11 by striking ‘‘2021’’ and inserting ‘‘2036’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Antonio KING, a/k/a Michael Peterkin, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4775.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 2003.

Decided Aug. 8, 2003.

John A. O’Leary, O’Leary Associates, Inc., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jerry Antonio King pleaded guilty to being *234a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of cocaine, and using or carrying a fire-arm during and in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He now appeals his convictions. We affirm.

King first claims that his plea was not voluntary. The transcript of the Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 proceeding discloses that King was competent to enter a guilty plea and that his plea was voluntary. King answered questions appropriately, expressed his satisfaction with his attorney’s services, and stated that he understood the charges to which he was pleading guilty, the penalties to which he was subject, and the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. None of the material * before us suggests that King lacked the “present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding ... [or] a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” *See Dusky v. United States,*362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that King was competent to enter his plea.

King also asserts that his attorney was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty when there was a question as to his Ghent’s competency. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are ordinarily not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively establishes ineffectiveness. *United States v. King,*119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997). As ineffectiveness does not appear on the face of the record, we do not address the claim.

We therefore affirm the convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before us and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 The material includes the supplemental appendix in which the court reporter who transcribed the Rule 11 proceeding stated in an affidavit that she omitted a word in the original transcript. The court reporter stated in her affidavit that defense counsel responded to the court’s question as to whether he had any question about King's competence, ”1 have no doubt, Your Honor.” A corrected transcript page was submitted.
<PAGE>


                                  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

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



    Dated: November 12, 2003

                                                  /s/ ALLEN F. GRUM
                                            --------------------------------
                                                Allen F. Grum, President
                                               (Chief Executive Officer)
    Dated: November 12, 2003


                                                 /s/ DANIEL P. PENBERTHY
                                           ---------------------------------
                                             Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                               (Chief Financial Officer)