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

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that, to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of April, 2009.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName:

Harley E Barnes IIITitle:

Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
585 A.2d 337

#### ROBBIE J. HARDIN v. CANTEEN, INC.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Greys Corporation  (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Rajan Ahluwalia
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: March 31, 2015
June 12, 1998

Mr. Dan Spiegelman
Chief Financial Officer
CV Therapeutics, Inc.
3172 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA  94304

Re: Termination of Research Program

Dear Dan:

  As you know, Biogen, Inc. ("Biogen") and CV Therapeutics, Inc. ("CVT")
have agreed to terminate the research program being conducted under the
terms of Section 8 of the Research Collaboration and License Agreement
between the parties dated March 7, 1997 (the "Agreement").  We understand
that [*] of the amount provided by Biotech Manufacturing Ltd. ("BML") to
fund the research program was not expended in connection with Phase 1.  This
letter will serve to acknowledge termination of the research program and to
confirm our agreement as to reimbursement of the unexpended funds. 
Capitalized terms used in this letter have the meanings set forth in the 
Agreement.

  Our understanding of the agreement between Biogen and CVT is as follows:

1.    The RESEARCH PROGRAM is deemed to have been terminated by mutual
      agreement of Biogen and CVT under Section 8.5 of the Agreement.

2.    BML will have no further obligation under Section 10.1(b)(ii) or
      Section 10.1(b)(iii) of the BML AGREEMENT to make an additional equity
      investment in CVT.

3.    CVT will reimburse Biogen, up to [ * ] for costs and expenses incurred
      by Biogen in connection with any of the following activities
      (collectively, the "Supplemental Research Activities") to the extent
      such costs and expenses are incurred by Biogen prior to December 31, 
      1999:

  (i) [ * ];

  (ii) A [ * ];

  (iii) A [ * ]; and/or

  (iv) Research activities related to [ * ].

  Biogen will send an invoice to CVT on a quarterly basis describing in
detail the Supplemental Research Activities performed and the costs and
expenses incurred by Biogen in connection with such activities.  CVT will
pay all invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt.

  If this letter accurately reflects the agreement between Biogen and CVT
related to termination of the RESEARCH PROGRAM and reimbursement of
unexpended research funding, please so indicate by signing this letter and
the enclosed copy where indicated then return a signed copy to me.

  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

                                Sincerely,

                                /s/ John W. Palmer
                                John W. Palmer
                                Program Executive, CVT-124
Agreed to and accepted:

CV Therapeutics, Inc.

By:     /s/ Louis G. Lange          

Title:  CEO
585 A.2d 362

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL KEE.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD W. TELEPO.

October 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 835 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 835

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for 
      inclusion in, the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument.

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

SECTION 1. MAP UPDATE; MAXIMUM ACREAGE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE 
              FLORISSANT FOSSIL BEDS NATIONAL MONUMENT.

    The first section of Public Law 91-60 (83 Stat. 101) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``entitled `Proposed Florissant Fossil Beds 
        National Monument', numbered NM-FFB-7100, and dated March 1967, 
        and more particularly described by metes and bounds in an 
        attachment to that map,'' and inserting ``entitled `Florissant 
        Fossil Beds National Monument Proposed Boundary Adjustment', 
        numbered 171/132,544, and dated May 3, 2016,''; and
            (2) by striking ``six thousand acres'' and inserting 
        ``6,300 acres''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 835

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To update the map of, and modify the maximum acreage available for 
      inclusion in, the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument.
```
585 A.2d 400

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. AARON BETHEA.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0649

_____________________________

LESTER BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

August 8, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The amended petition for belated appeal is denied on the 

merits. 

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Lester Brown, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
585 A.2d 343

#### HUGH A. MCGUIRE, T/A MCGUIRE ASSOCIATES v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification granted.
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that, to his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 15th day of July, 2009.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.D.H., A JUVENILE.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANTTO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofSoutheastern Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Paul Dickman, Chief Financial Officer, Principal ExecutiveOfficer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 15, 2018

 

/s/ Paul Dickman              

Paul Dickman,

Chief Financial Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer

 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    Accompanying
    Form 10-Q
    Report
    of First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. §1350(a) and
    (b))
  Form 10-Q
  Bruce
    W. Duncan
        Scott
    A. Musil
        A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
    retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information
    contained in this written statement shall not be deemed
    filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed
    incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act
    of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except as shall
    be expressly set forth by specific reference to such filing.
#### CLARA MORGAN SHACKIL v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY.

December 8, 1987.

Leave to appeal granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,341,969
<SECURITIES>                                   552,301
<RECEIVABLES>                               77,669,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                 9,181,550
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,382,022
<PP&E>                                       7,234,915<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,616,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       58,257,767
<BONDS>                                     17,597,981
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,287
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,718,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,616,937
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,237,567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,276,358
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             6,537,684
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,049,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,625,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,625,729)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E DOES NOT APPLY - FIGURE REPRESENTS OTHER ASSETS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. 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 the Quarterly Report of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
A. White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By
    
    /s/James A. WhiteName: James A. WhiteTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 9, 2004
585 A.2d 366

#### DOBRILA RECTOR v. ALEXANDER LEVCHUK.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GARY WEIDNER.

November 17, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50413

Summary Calendar

In The Matter Of: DELORIS SIMMONS,

Debtor.

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

DELORIS SIMMONS,

Appellant,

VERSUS

PHYLLIS BRACHER,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-99-CV-12-F)

November 24, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This is an appeal of the bankruptcy court’s refusal, affirmed

by the district court, to confirm a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.

The bankruptcy plan gave a debt co-signed by the debtor’s exhusband priority over all other unsecured claims, so that the cosigned debt would have to be paid in full before any other claims

could be paid. The relevant statutory provision allows a plan to

"designate a class or classes of unsecured claims, as provided in

§ 1122 of this Title, but may not discriminate unfairly against any2

cla ss so designated; however, such a plan may treat plans for a

consumer debt of the debtor if an individual is lia ble on such

consumer debt with the debt or differently than other unsecured

claims." 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1). The bankruptcy court concluded

that the phrase prohibiting the plan from "discriminating unfairly

against any class" applied to the class where "an individual is

liable on such co nsumer debt with the debtor." Since the debtor

had failed to articulate the reasons for the special classification

proposed and had failed to introduce information as to the prepetition status or terms of the debts co-signed by her ex-husband

and had failed to establish the financial conditions of the exhusband, the classification in question did unfairly discriminate

against the other classes. The debtor appealed to the district

court who affirmed the bankruptcy court’s conclusion.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district court in its Order affirming the bankruptcy court’s

decision filed under date of March 26, 1999, we AFFIRM the Final

Judgment of the district court entered under date of March 26,

1999, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. S ee also In

the Matter of Oscar Chacon, Jr. and Patricia Chacon, Debtors , No.

99-50163 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 1999 (unpublished)).

AFFIRMED

.
584 A.2d 250

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM H. FORD.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### EDWARD FARRELL v. BOSTON OLD COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY.

October 20, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 204

#### IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION OF GLENN A. ZWERIN, M.D., FOR LICENSURE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE AND SURGERY IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Forest Service Comments to the 

Possible Changes to MSPB Adjudicatory Regulations

Possible Revised Regulation MSPB Reasons for 

Recommended Change 

Forest Service Comments 

§ 1201.33 Federal witnesses

(a) Every Federal agency or 

corporation, including nonparties, 

must make its employees or 

personnel available to furnish sworn 

statements or to appear as witnesses 

at the hearing when ordered by the 

judge to do so. The responding 

agency shall arrange for the 

presence of approved Federal 

employee witnesses to include those 

who are employed by other Federal 

agencies or corporations. When 

providing those statements or 

appearing at the hearing, Federal 

employee witnesses will be in 

official duty status (i.e., entitled to 

pay and benefits including travel 

and per diem, where appropriate).

This proposed change will 

shift the administrative 

burden of ensuring the 

appearance of federal 

employee witnesses requested 

by the appellant who work for 

a non-party Federal agency. 

Agencies are already 

responsible for ensuring the 

presence of their own 

employee witnesses and for 

the presence of agency 

requested witnesses employed 

by non-party Federal 

agencies.

Agency representatives will now 

have to “arrange” for the testimony 

of federal employees who are NOT 

agency employees. What does the 

agency do if the new employing 

agency won’t allow the witness 

official time to appear at the hearing 

or deposition? What if the former coworker doesn’t want to testify unless 

he’s on official time (or maybe not at 

all)? What do you do then? The 

proposed regulations don’t provide 

an answer to these questions. The 

Board needs to determine how an 

agency goes about arranging 

(procedures) for witnesses who are 

not agency employees and what 

happens when the other agency will 

not allow the employee to testify? 

Are there going to be sanctions 

against the respondent agency on 

appeal?
Exhibit 11
HMN Financial, Inc.
Computation of Earnings Per Common Share



                                     Three Months Ended March 31,  
                                    -----------------------------
Computation of Earnings 
 Per Common Share:                      1998             1997   
                                    -----------------------------
Weighted average number of common 
 shares outstanding used in basic 
 earnings per common share 
 calculation . . . . . . . . . . . .    5,447,501      5,550,215     

Net dilutive effect of:
 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      403,037        255,093     
 Restricted stock awards . . . . . .       61,395         83,507     
                                      -----------      ---------

Weighted average number of shares 
 outstanding adjusted for effect of 
 dilutive securities . . . . . . . .    5,911,933      5,888,815     
                                      ===========      =========

Income available to common shareholders$1,663,355      1,474,480     

Basic earnings per common share. . .        $0.37           0.27     

Diluted earnings per common share. .        $0.28           0.25