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

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Linens 'n Things, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Norman
Axelrod, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William T. Giles, as
Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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.



    /s/ Norman Axelrod
---------------------------
NAME:    Norman Axelrod
TITLE:   Chairman and Chief
         Executive Officer
DATE:    August 10, 2005


    /s/ William T. Giles
---------------------------
NAME:    William T. Giles
TITLE:   Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer
DATE:    August 10, 2005



                                       24
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1534

___________

In re: Sheila Paskel, *

 *

Debtor, *

 *

---------------------- *

 * Appeal from the United States

U.S. Trustee, * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

v. *

 *

Thomas Womack, Jr., *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 15, 1998

 Filed: July 20, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________
The Honorable Mary D. Scott, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas. 

The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern

2

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

The bankruptcy court entered judgment against Thomas Womack, Jr., in an

1

adversary proceeding. Womack timely appealed, but failed to perfect the appeal in

accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 8006. The bankruptcy court thus referred the case

to the district court for such action as it deemed appropriate, under Bankruptcy Rule 2

8001(a). The district court issued a show-cause order affording Womack the

opportunity to explain his failure to perfect the appeal, and warning him that he faced

dismissal. Womack&s filing was unresponsive on this issue, and the district court

dismissed the appeal. Womack now appeals that dismissal. We conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the bankruptcy appeal for failure

to perfect it. See In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d 1468, 1470-71 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard

of review); see also In re Champion, 895 F.2d 490, 492 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21757]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or contacting 
the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd898f9c99989c939c91848e948ebd9b909ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="423630232627232c232e3b312b3102242f216c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201194.
    Title: Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston 
Authority and CMA CGM.
    Parties: Port of Houston Authority and CMA CGM S.A.
    Filing Party: Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of 
Houston Authority; PO Box 2562; Houston, TX 77252-2562.
    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes Port of Houston Authority to 
establish discounted rates and preferential berthing rights for CMA CGM 
vessels calling at the port.

    Agreement No.: 201195.
    Title: Marine Terminal Services Agreement between Port of Houston 
Authority and CIA. SudAmericana de Vapores S.A.
    Parties: Port of Houston Authority and CIA. SudAmericana de Vapores 
S.A.
    Filing Party: Erik A. Eriksson, Esq.; General Counsel; Port of 
Houston Authority; PO Box 2562; Houston, TX 77252-2562.
    Synopsis: The agreement authorizes Port of Houston Authority to 
establish discounted rates and preferential berthing rights for CIA. 
SudAmericana de Vapores S.A. vessels calling at the port.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: September 12, 2008.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21757 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21665]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1786-DR]


Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1786-DR), datedSeptember 2, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration ofSeptember 2, 2008.

    St. Tammany and Tangipahoa Parishes for Individual Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters);97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21665 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7272

ROBERT WILKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVID SHAW, Administrator; JAMES MCVIGOR, Sheriff; PHIL CORBETT, 

Chief; ELAINE TANSKI, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES MARSHALS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03031-D)

Submitted: February 17, 2022 Decided: February 22, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON 

(US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Christina Jansen Banfield, HARRIS, 
2

CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Robert Wilkins appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in 

favor of four individually named defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Wilkins v. Shaw, No. 5:20-ct-03031-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 

2021). We grant Wilkins’ motion to amend in part, insofar as he seeks to supplement the 

arguments in his informal brief, but deny the motion to amend in part, insofar as Wilkins

seeks substantive relief from the district court’s order. We deny Wilkins’ request for 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.2(c)






 Exhibit 10.2(c) 

[***] Certain information in this document has been excluded pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 601(b)(10). Such
excluded information is not material and would likely cause competitive harm to the registrant if publicly disclosed. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2

 TO LICENSING AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 2 (“Amendment No. 2”) to the Licensing and Assignment Agreement by and between Satsuma
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Company”) and Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories, Ltd. (“SNBL”) of June 30, 2016 (the “Agreement”) is dated as of April 27, 2017 (“Amendment
No. 2 Effective Date”) 
  

	A.	 Company and SNBL have previously entered into the Agreement and now wish to amend certain provisions.



  

	B.	 Company and SNBL desire that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement to remain in full force and
effect. 


 For good and valuable consideration, Company and SNBL hereby agree as follows: 

 

	1.	 Amendment to the Agreement. 



 

	 	a.	 Exhibit 1.20.2. “Other Product Patents” is hereby amended and replaced in its entirely with
the following: 


 Other Product Patents 
  

	
	Other Product Patents
	
[***]

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 















	2.	 Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to
them in the Agreement. This Amendment No. 2 will be effective for all purposes as of the Amendment No. 2 Effective Date. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in two counterparts, including by facsimile or electronically transmitted
copies, each of which will be deemed to be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 


 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be signed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

			
	SATSUMA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	  	 SHIN NIPPON BIOMEDICAL

LABORATORIES, LTD.

		
	By: /s/ John Kollins                        	  	By: /s/ Shunji Haruta                        
	Printed Name: John Kollins	  	Printed Name: Shunji Haruta
	Title: President & CEO	  	Title: General Manager, TR Company
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

________________________________ 

 * 

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc., *

Plaintiff *

 * 

v. * Civil Action No. 06-cv-100-JD 

 * 

HemCon, Inc. *

Defendant *

________________________________ * 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1) and 4(a)(1)(A), that 

Defendant HemCon, Inc. hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit from the Court Order granting Motion for Permanent Injunction and Permanent 

Injunction Order entered in this action on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 438 and 439). 

Date: September 21, 2010 

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 

By: /s/ Raymond Kurz 

Raymond A. Kurz (admitted pro hac vice) 

Celine Crowson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Rebekah L. Osborne (admitted pro hac vice) 

Keith B. O’Doherty (admitted pro hac vice) 

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW 

Washington DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 637-5600 

 

LOCAL COUNSEL 

By: /s/ Elizabeth Maher Leonard

Elizabeth M. Leonard (NH Bar No. 11314)

WIGGIN & NOURIE, P.A. 

670 North Commercial Street, Suite 305

P.O. Box 808 

Manchester, NH 03105-0808 

Telephone: (603) 669-2211 

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 442 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the within Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record 

pursuant to the Court’s rules and procedures concerning electronic filing. Electronically Served 

Through ECF: Daniel E. Will, Esq.

September 21, 2010 /s/ Elizabeth Maher Leonard

 Elizabeth Maher Leonard

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 442 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 2
#### INTERSTATE ELECTRIC COMPANY v. A. SLIMAN.

No. 399.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1932.

Sandoz & Sandoz, of Opelousas, for appellant.

L. L. Perrault, of Opelousas, for appellee.

MOUTON, J.

Plaintiff company sues defendant on open account for $110.06, with legal interest, for wares and merchandise sold and delivered to him.

The real issue presented for solution herein is as to the proper application of a check sent by defendant to plaintiff company drawn October 15, 1926, for $56.72.

Two ledger statements copied from plaintiff’s original entries were filed by defendant.

The first ledger shows the settlement of an old disputed account before the present controversy arose between the parties in this suit. The second ledger statement shows the present account and on which this suit is brought. This second account began on August 14,1926, as appears from the first item carried thereon.

The check for $56.72 was drawn on October 15.1926, and was received by plaintiff October 19.1926, more than two months after the second account was opened.

Tugel, auditor for plaintiff company, says that this check for $56.72 was given in settlement of the old account and defendant says it was not, but should be applied to the present account.

*662This statement of defendant is corroborated by the fact that the check was received by plaintiff after the opening of the second account.

The lower court evidently accepted the version of the payment given by defendant, and rendered judgment against him for $2.50 admitted to be due, and for costs which had accrued when that amount was deposited in the registry of the court.

On this finding, which is based on a pure question of fact, we do not find any manifest error to warrant a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

James W. McCarthy

v. Civil No. 04-cv-477-JD

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

O R D E R

Following appeal, the First Circuit vacated the order

remanding the case for further arbitration proceedings and

directed this court “to enter judgment confirming the Second

Panel’s Modified Award.” Mandate (1st Cir. Sept. 19, 2006). 

Therefore, the clerk of court shall enter judgment in accordance

with the First Circuit’s mandate and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 16, 2006

cc: John F. Adkins, Esquire

W. Wright Danenbarger, Esquire

Carol E. Head, Esquire

William A. Jacobson, Esquire

Shanna L. Pitts, Esquire

John R. Skelton, Esquire

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JD Document 40 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK

- WALLACE AND WILLIAM WALLACE,

Petitioners

v.

CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

AND COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY AND JAMES S. TUPITZA, ESQUIRE AND TUPITZA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 852 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK

- WALLACE AND WILLIAM WALLACE,

Petitioner

v.

GERARD P. EGAN, ESQUIRE AND

EGAN YOUNG LAW FIRM AND NEIL E. JOKELSON, ESQUIRE AND NEIL E. JOKELSON & ASSOCIATES,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 853 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and

Application for Leave to Amend/Supplement PAA are DENIED

.[ 852 MAL 2017 and 853 MAL 2017 ]

- 2
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian J. Clark, certify that:

 
| 1.     |   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”);                                                                                                                                                                             |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 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 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under  which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period  covered by this report. |

 
| Date: June 22, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Brian J. Clark                                                                                           |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Brian J. Clark                                                                                               |
|                     |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer(principal financial and accounting officer) |

 

1

----
#### HOME FINANCE SERVICE v. WALMSLEY.

No. 16626.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 31, 1937.

Joseph A. Casey, of New Orleans, for appellant.

T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, in the First city court of New Orleans, sued defendant on a promissory note claiming a balance of more than $100 and from a judgment dismissing the suit has appealed to this court.

Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground “that no notice of appeal has ever been served on either the defendant or Attorney for defendant, notwithstanding the presence of defendant in the City of New Orleans.”

The amount involved is more than $100, and therefore, since the appeal was taken by motion in open court and at the same term of court at which the judgment was rendered, no citation of appeal was necessary.

In Richardson v. Caloavello, 3 La.App. 535, we said: “In the present case, the motion for appeal appears to have been made one week subsequent to the judgment which was ‘read, rendered and signed in open Court.’ Considering these facts and the recent statute just noted, it follows that the appeal herein taken by motion in open court, without citation, and in accordance with Arts. 573 and 574, C.P., was, in all respect, regular.”

In Ratcliff v. Industrial Life Ins. Co., 163 So. 428, 429, we again said: “If the appeal was granted on motion in open court, as we must assume that it was under the authorities above set forth, there was no necessity that a citation issue or be served.”

In Swain v. Globe Lumber Company, 144 La. 207, 80 So. 256, 257, the Supreme Court said: “The appeal having been granted in open court, no further citation was necessary.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.

Motion to dismiss denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7999

CHRISTOPHER S. HENRY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

AL BASKERVILLE, Warden of Powhatan Correctional Center; 

UNKNOWN, Correctional Officer, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-00561-HEH) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher S. Henry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Christopher S. Henry appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). Henry also appeals the district court’s 

order denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Henry v. Baskerville, No. 3:08-cv00561-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 2009 & Oct. 22, 2009). 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. 

AFFIRMED