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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Morgan R. Brown, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to his knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Corporation as of September 30, 2009.

 
| Dated:  November 16, 2009 | /s/  Morgan  R. Brown                                          |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Morgan R. Brown, Executive Vice President,   and Chief Financial Officer |
|                           | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)                            |

 

“This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q towhich it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCorporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.”

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,502,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,841
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,571,355
<PP&E>                                         383,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,548,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          400,059
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,116,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,548,123
<SALES>                                        111,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           83,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               744,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (922,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (922,575)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (922,575)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 907 

Congratulating the X PRIZE Foundation’s leadership in inspiring a new 

generation of viable, super-efficient vehicles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the X PRIZE Foundation’s leadership in 

inspiring a new generation of viable, super-efficient vehicles. 

Whereas the United States is heavily dependent on foreign 

sources of oil that are concentrated in tumultuous countries and regions; 

Whereas the National security and economic prosperity of the 

United States demand that we move toward a sustainable 

energy future; 

Whereas the ability of foreign governments to assert great 

control over oil production allows unfriendly regimes to 

use energy exports as leverage against the United States 

and our allies; 

Whereas continued reliance on the use of greenhouse gas intensive fuels may impact global climate change; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 907 IH 

Whereas the automotive sector is heavily dependent on oil, 

which makes Americans vulnerable to oil price fluctuation 

and is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions; 

Whereas average fuel economy in the United States has increased slowly during the last 20 years; 

Whereas many promising technologies exist that can lead to 

a breakthrough vehicle that will meet the need for sustainable transportation; 

Whereas breakthroughs are often achieved by the free market 

fueling the entrepreneurial spirit of inventors and investors; 

Whereas the Automotive X PRIZE is a private, independent, 

technology-neutral competition being developed by the X 

PRIZE Foundation to inspire a new generation of viable, 

super-efficient vehicles that help break our addiction to 

oil and stem the effects of climate change; and 

Whereas the Automotive X PRIZE will award a multi-million 

dollar reward to teams that can design, build, and demonstrate production-capable vehicles that achieve 100 

MPG or its equivalent: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the United States House of Rep2 resentatives— 

3 (1) congratulates the X PRIZE Foundation’s 

4 leadership for inspiring a new generation of viable, 

5 super-efficient vehicles that help break our addiction 

6 to oil through the Automotive X PRIZE competi7 tion; 

8 (2) congratulates the X PRIZE Foundation on 

9 their innovation and vision to bring together some of 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 907 IH 

1 the finest minds in government, non-government, 

2 university, and industry to advise and participate in 

3 the Automotive X PRIZE competition; and 

4 (3) applauds the X PRIZE Foundation’s ongo5 ing commitment to find solutions to some of human6 ity’s greatest challenges as exemplified in the Auto7 motive X PRIZE. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23426]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11409 and <greek-i> 11410]


Florida Disaster Number FL-00035

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/26/
2008.
    Incident: Tropical Storm Fay.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2008 through 09/12/2008.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/24/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/27/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/26/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Florida, dated 08/26/2008 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Alachua, 
Gadsden, Liberty, Martin.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Florida: Calhoun, Gilchrist, Gulf, Jackson.
    Georgia: Decatur, Seminole.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-23426 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-01965-WYD Document 6 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
#### Joseph B. Mastro, Appellant, v Edward J. Carroll, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 619]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Cobb, J.), entered June 29, 2001 in Ulster County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

On December 22, 1993, defendant, an attorney, executed a promissory note made payable to plaintiff in the amount of $30,000. The promissory note provided that it was due on demand and, if no demand was made, within one year after the making of the note. It also set forth that the note would bear interest and plaintiff would be entitled to counsel fees if defendant defaulted. Claiming that defendant “failed to remit any payments,” plaintiff commenced this action in July 2000 by moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213. Defendant opposed the relief, raising lack of consideration as a defense claiming that the $30,000 was given to him by a third person and not by plaintiff* Defendant also contended that he was entitled to an automatic stay due to his filing of a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Supreme Court initially stayed determination of the motion, however, following the termination of the bankruptcy proceeding, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reasoning that defendant’s claim of lack of consideration raised triable issues of fact. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case herein by submitting proof indicating that defendant executed the promissory note and defaulted in its payment to plaintiff (see, *Maikels v Albany Broadcasting Co.,*248 AD2d 915, 916; *Friends Lbr. v Cornell Dev. Corp.,*243 AD2d 886, 887). The burden then shifted to defendant to submit “proof demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to a bona fide defense” *(Friends Lbr. v Cornell Dev. Corp., supra*at 887; *see, Maikels v Albany Broadcasting Co., supra*at 916; *Lavelle v Urbach, Kahn & Werlin,*198 AD2d 751, 751). Lack of consideration is a viable defense (see, *Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v L.N. Props.,*174 AD2d 383). Notably, the promissory note is not unambiguous on its face inasmuch as it does not state that defendant received funds from plaintiff or that the note was executed for value received *(cf., Friends Lbr. v Cornell Dev. Corp., supra;*
      *803
      *Crumbliss v Swerdlow,*158 AD2d 502, *lv denied*75 NY2d 710). Accordingly, consideration of parol evidence in such a case is proper (see, *DeVito v Benjamin,*243 AD2d 600; *Adirondack Bank v Simmons,*210 AD2d 651; 58 NY Jur 2d, Evidence and Witnesses, § 576; *cf., Schmitz v MacDonald,*250 AD2d 533, *lv denied*92 NY2d 809). Significantly, although plaintiff objects to the defense of lack of consideration, his affidavit in support of his motion fails to affirmatively state that he tendered defendant the $30,000. Given the ambiguities presented, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion.

Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

We note that although defendant raises additional defenses in his brief, these claims were not made before Supreme Court and will not be addressed herein.
#### The State, ex rel. Bennett, *v.*Daily, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, et al.

(No. 24575

— Decided March 14, 1934.)

*33
      *Mr. Roland G. Allen,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Rricher,*attorney general, *Mr. William S. Evatt*and *Mr. John K. Evans,*for respondents.

Jones,'J.

The relator purchased a truck or commercial car, composed of a chassis and cab, from a *34manufacturer who at the time of purchase represented the weight of the truck fully equipped to be' 3,515 pounds. Subsequently the relator purchased a body and attached it to his truck, which made the actual gross weight of the truck 4,550 pounds after adding the body equipment. While the petition does not so state, relator’s counsel in his brief admits that the relator attached the body to his truck for the purpose of ordinary hauling.

While other sections.of the Registration Act have been cited as throwing some light upon this controversy, the entire question hinges upon the construction that should be given to Section 6293, General Code, which in part reads as follows: “The weight of all motor vehicles, shall be the weight of the vehicle fully equipped as represented by the manufacturer, or as named in the shipping bill; provided, that if this be not known, or is not the actual weight, the actual weight as determined on a standard scale shall govern. ’ ’

The relator bases his contention on the first clause of the quoted section, while the respondents rely upon the second. . The truck, in addition to its equipment when sold by the manufacturer, had further equipment when the application for license was made. Had the body been attached to the chassis when sold by the manufacturer, no doubt the latter’s representation of the weight would have been, not 3,515 pounds, but 4,550 pounds. Should we uphold relator’s contention, a manufacturer or purchaser could very easily evade the spirit and manifest purpose of the Motor License Law, which looks to the actual rather than the represented weight.

The construction asked by the relator might lead to absurd situations. For example: Had the manufacturer attached the body to the truck -at the time of sale, the represented weight would be the gross weight of the truck thus equipped, and the license fee would *35have, been based thereon. Can it be cogently argued that, if a manufacturer one week sells a truck composed of a chassis and cab, and the next week sells a body for the same truck, which the purchaser attaches thereto, for the purpose of ordinary hauling, as he says, the purchaser can escape the statutory fee by such a device? The last clause of the above-quoted section provides that, if the weight of the equipped vehicle as represented be not known, or *is not the actual weight, the actual weight as determined on a standard scale shall govern.*The section makes it clear that the pole star of the act is the actual and not the represented weight, and it should govern in this case.

The demurrer of the relator to the answer will be overruled and the writ denied.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Name of Subsidiary                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Shuffle Master of Mississippi, Inc.                       |  | Mississippi                  
|Shuffle Master International Limited                      |  | Barbados                     
|Shuffle Master International, Inc.                        |  | Nevada                       
|Shuffle Master Australia Pty Ltd                          |  | Australia                    
|Gaming Products Pty Ltd                                   |  | Australia                    
|VIP Gaming Solutions Pty Limited                          |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd               |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Australasia Pty Ltd                        |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Holding GMBH                               |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master Management-Services GMBH                   |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master GMBH                                       |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master Holding GMBH & Co Financing Consulting-KEG |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master GMBH & Co KG (dba CARD)                    |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Up Productions                                    |  | Delaware                     
|CARD Casinos Austria Research and Development Limited     |  | New Zealand                  
|CARD LLC                                                  |  | Nevada                       
|CARD-Australasia Limited                                  |  | Macau                        

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134739 Michael F. Cavanagh 134978 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. SHEPHERD MONTESSORI CENTER MILAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 134739 COA: 272357 Washtenaw CC: 00-001072-AS ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING OFFICIAL and ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

SHEPHERD MONTESSORI CENTER MILAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134978 COA: 272357 Washtenaw CC: 00-001072-AS ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING OFFICIAL and ANN ARBOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 22, 2007 judgment and the application fo r leave to appeal th e August 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals are considered. Pursua nt to MCR 7.30 2(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the May 22, 2007 judg ment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to the Court of Ap peals for reconsideration in light of Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson v City of Jackson, 478 Mich 373 (2007). In particular, the Court of Appeals should reconsid er whether the denial of th e zoning vari ance imposed a “substantial burden” on the plaintiff’s religious exercise, i.e., whether the denial of the variance “coerce[s] individuals into acting contrary to th eir religious beliefs.” Id. at 401._______________________________________ __ 2

“A mere inconvenience or irritation” or “something that simp ly makes it more difficult in some respect to practice on e’s religion does not constitute a ‘substantial burden.’” Id. In addition, we REVERSE the August 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals awarding plaintiff sanctions for a vexatious motion for reconsideration. Give n the facts and the law at issue in this case, the Court of Appeal s clearly erred in imposing such sanctions.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

I would not remand this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsider ation in light of Greater Bible Way Temple of Jackson v City of Jackson

, 1 for the reasons stated in my
concurrence in that case. Ra ther, I would grant leave to a ppeal to consider whether the denial of a variance implicates the Religious Land Use and Institu tionalized Persons Act. 2
If it does, we should determ ine whether it imposes a subs tantial burden on plaintiff’s exercise of its religious beliefs.

1 478 Mich 373 (2007).

2 42 USC 2000cc et seq.

p0325 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2008

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3,823,312
<SECURITIES>                                   00
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,613,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                   902,000
<INVENTORY>                                    00
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,097,821
<PP&E>                                         454,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,623,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,134,047
<BONDS>                                        00
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          00
<PREFERRED>                                    00
<COMMON>                                       22,292
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,467,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,623,650
<SALES>                                        4,187,985
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,187,985
<CGS>                                          3,179,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,179,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,282,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               00
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             00
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (215,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (228,888)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 00
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                00
<CHANGES>                                      00
<NET-INCOME>                                   (228,888)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  00
        


</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00098-CV

Hudson Insurance Company

v.

Bruce Gamble Farms, Jim Gamble Farms, Brian Jones Farms, & Crop Guard Group, 

Inc.

On Appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-DCL-03489-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal 

are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 5, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23418]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  11 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 2008.

Place:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status:  Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Enforcement Matters.

Contact Person for More Information:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Staff Assistant.
 [FR Doc. E8-23418 Filed 9-30-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P