alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATIONS**     OnNovember 14, 2005, Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) with the Securities and ExchangeCommission. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the following certifications are being made to accompany the Form 10-Q:**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 14, 2005 /s/ JAMES L. FARES   James L. Fares   Chief Executive Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 14, 2005 /s/ GEORGE STUART   George Stuart   Chief Financial Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
**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

 

 

 In connection with the Annual Report of AetherSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned, to the best of his knowledge and inthe capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

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

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ David S.  Oros       |   | March 15, 2005 |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------|
| David S. Oros            |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer |   |
|                     |   |
|                     |   |
| /s/ David C.  Reymann    |   | March 15, 2005 |
| David C. Reymann         |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |
|                          |        |                |  |

 

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AetherSystems, Inc. and will be retained by Aether Systems, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cronos Global Income Fund XIV,
L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
the undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, and John Kallas,
the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Registrant.November 12, 2004 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of Cronos
Capital Corp., General Partner of the
Registrant
 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.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES, REGULATION, N.J.A.C., 7:7-2(B)1.III., AND APPLICATION OF SAID REGULATION TO A CERTAIN PROJECT PROPOSED BY RALPH CLAYTON, JR.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied. (See 214 *N.J.Super.*579)
Comments Re Proposed New MSPB Regulations, Federal Register 33663, June 7, 2012 

Paragraph Language Comment 

1200.4 “(b) No public procedures will be held on the 

petition before its disposition. If the MSPB 

finds that the petition contains adequate 

justification, a rulemaking proceeding will be 

initiated or a final rule will be issued as 

appropriate.” 

The MSPB has a unique mission to protect the 

integrity of the Federal personnel system. This 

proposed rule seems to say that the MSPB 

might issue rules (regulations) without allowing 

the stakeholders and the public the 

opportunity to comment. This is not consistent 

with the current focus on transparency and 

open Government, and may even be 

inconsistent with the requirements of the 

Administrative Procedures Act. Even if the 

APA would allow this, it does not serve the 

public well, and may give the appearance that 

the proposals of certain groups will be treated 

differently/more favorably (no comment 

period) , than proposals from other 

groups. Allowing a comment period not only 

adds value to the process, it helps maintain the 

appearance of fairness and objectivity in the 

process. 

1201.21 Expands requirements for Agencies to inform 

employees of their rights when issuing a 

decision of an appealable action. Includes 

stating option to file OSC/IRA action or an EEO 

complaint, and explaining impact of selecting 

among various remedies when alleging a PPP. 

This is a vastly expanded and highly complex 

notice requirement. It places agencies at 

higher risk of harmful error violations if they 

don’t articulate the requirements well, and 

does nothing meaningful to help employees 

and appellants better understand their rights. 

To eliminate these likely adverse effects on 

both agencies and employees, MSPB should 

include in these regulations plain language 

covering the required content, which agencies 

may copy into their adverse action notices. 

1201.33 Federal Witnesses The MSPB added “to appear at a deposition” to 

the first sentence of subparagraph (a) to clarify 

that Federal agencies have the obligation of 

making its employees available at depositions, 

but it did not include the same language in the 

second sentence of the same subparagraph, 

making it clear that those employees are in 

official duty status when they appear at 

depositions. I think this omission will create 

ambiguity and confusion. 

1201.113 Finality of Decision It appears that the word “decision” may have 

been inadvertently omitted after “Board’s 

final” in the first sentence of this proposed rule.
1201.118 Board Reopening of Final Decisions The proposed modifications to this regulation 

severely limit the jurisdiction the Board 

currently has to reopen and reconsider cases 

on its own motion. These proposed limitations 

appear to be in conflict with the broad 

statutory authority granted to the Board by 5 

U.S.C. §7701(e)(1).
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Garrett Thornburg, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date: May 7, 2004 By:  /s/ Garrett Thornburg    Garrett Thornburg    Chief Executive Officer(authorized officer of registrant)
Applicant Options with Initial Proffered Permit

Does 

applicant accept the 

terms and conditions of the 

 initial proffered 

permit?

Applicant sends specific objections to

district engineer. The district engineer

will either modify the permit to remove all

objectionable conditions, remove some

of the objectionable conditions, or not modify

the permit. A proffered permit is sent to the

applicant for reconsideration with an NAP

and an RFA form.

Does the 

applicant accept the 

terms and conditions of 

the proffered 

permit?

Applicant declines the proffered permit. 

The declined individual permit may be 

appealed by submitting a RFA to the 

division engineer within 60 days of the 

date of the NAP (see Appendix A).

YesYes

No

No

Applicant/Corps sign standard

Appendix B

permit or applicant accepts

letter of permission.

The project is authorized.

Applicant/Corps sign standard

permit or applicant accepts

letter of permission.

The project is authorized.

Initial proffered 

permit sent to 

applicant.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Garrett Thornburg, Chief Executive 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:



|(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/ Garrett Thornburg  
|Garrett Thornburg      
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 8, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  APR-30-1998
<CASH>                         11,349,124
<SECURITIES>                   12,105,756
<RECEIVABLES>                     978,083
<ALLOWANCES>                       10,000
<INVENTORY>                     4,013,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               28,737,550
<PP&E>                         20,368,680
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,235,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 44,870,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,163,026
<BONDS>                         2,636,264
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                        1,457,798
<OTHER-SE>                     37,613,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   44,870,512
<SALES>                         2,411,810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,882,499
<CGS>                           1,937,545
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  10,991,733
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                187,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (6,794,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (6,794,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (6,794,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.49)
        


</TABLE>
#### May *v.*Sly.

*Friday, November*22.

When a constable justifies an arrest, &c. under a *capias ad satisfaciendum,*which under the statute he is bound to return, the plea must aver a return of the execution, or show a sufficient reason why a return had not been made.

ERROR to the *Montgomery*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

This was an action of trespass for an assault and battery and false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded in justification, that on, &c., he was a constable of the township of Madison, in the county of *Montgomery;*that a writ of *capias ad satisfaciendum*was issued by a justice of the peace of said county and delivered to him, whereby, after reciting that one *Thomas M. Curry*had obtained a judgment against the plaintiff, May, for the sum of 26 dollars and 12 cents before said justice, besides interest and costs, the defendant was commanded to take the body of *May*to satisfy said *Curry*the judgment aforesaid, and to commit *May*to jail there to remain, &c.; and that' he did, according to the command of said writ, on, &c., at, &c., arrest said *May*as he lawfully might, &c. Demurrer to the plea and judgment for the defendant.

The sufficiency of this'plea depends upon the construction to be given to the 18th section of the act “authorizing the appointment of constables 'and defining their duties.” Rev. Stat. 1838. Without reference to that statute, it seems that an officer justifying under mesne process must show in his plea, that the process has been returned, but if he justify under *final*process, he need not, in general, aver the return of it. The reason is, that the former is said to be returnable process, the latter not; and if an officer justify under process which it is his duty to return, he never has a complete justification until he discharges that duty. 1 Cowp. 19.—10 East, 82.—5 B. & C. 485.— 8 Johns. 52.—2 Str. 1184.—5 Co. 90.—2 Blackf. 127. The statute above referred to makes all process, that comes into the hands of a constable, returnable. It abolishes the distinction, in that particular, between mesne and final process. The reason, therefore, of the rule which requires an *officer,*who seeks *207to justify his acts under *mesne*process, to show in his plea the return of the writ, applies to process of execution issued under our statute (1).

*R. C. Gregory*and *D.*Brier, for the plaintiff.

*JR. S. Lane*and *S. C. Willson,*for the defendant.

We are of opinion that the plea in this case is defective in not averring a return of the *capias ad satisfaciendum,*or showing a sufficient reason why a return has not been made.

There are other exceptions taken to the plea, but we do not think either of them tenable.'

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Vide *Davis*v. *Bush,*Vol. 4 of these Rep. 330.
Ex-99.4
Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
Certificatesholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Ending
   Class          Interest          Principle             Losses            Balance
------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------- ----------------
<S>          <C>                <C>                <C>                  <C>
A1                  145,333.34                  -                    -     5,450,000.00
A10                 233,934.68       (202,131.55)                    -     8,452,131.55
A11               1,156,211.74                  -                    -    39,641,546.00
A12                          -                  -                    -     1,468,205.00
A13                  78,218.77        (78,218.77)                    -     2,828,218.77
A14                 534,589.76       (534,589.76)                    -    19,329,589.76
A2                  524,671.85                  -                    -    18,655,000.00
A3                1,115,071.84                  -                    -    39,647,000.00
A4                  188,465.60                  -                    -     6,701,000.00
A5                    7,947.90                  -                    -                -
A6                  959,125.72       1,576,646.64                    -    35,523,353.36
A7                  957,888.50       1,469,638.66                    -    33,112,361.34
A8                  224,151.45         405,423.42                    -     9,134,576.58
A9                  108,606.45                  -                    -                -
B1                  155,012.22          23,640.15                    -     5,497,259.85
B2                   56,070.46           8,551.02                    -     1,988,448.98
B3                   29,683.37           4,526.87                    -     1,052,673.13
B4                   29,683.37           4,526.87                    -     1,052,673.13
B5                    9,894.46           1,508.96                    -       350,891.04
B6                   16,491.34           2,515.00                    -       584,839.00
PO                           -          19,099.70                    -     1,763,520.30
RL                           -                  -                    -                -
RU                        0.57             100.00                    -                -
X                   192,067.02                  -                    -                -
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 10.13**

 

In May, 2002, Aether Systems,Inc. confirmed Frank Briganti’s promotion to President, Transportation &Logistics.  As President, Mr. Brigantiwill receive an annual base salary of $170,000 and will be eligible toparticipate in Aether’s employee benefit plans.  Mr. Briganti will also be eligible to receive an annual bonus inan amount tied to specific revenue growth and EBITDA objectives agreed uponbetween the parties.  In addition, Mr.Briganti will have access to a vehicle owned and maintained by Aether.

 

The parties also agreed thatMr. Briganti will be entitled to receive severance in an amount equal to hisbase annual salary in the event he no longer serves as President of Aether’sTransportation segment as a direct result of a change in control.  It is understood that a change in controlwould occur as the result of the sale of all or substantially all of the assetsof Aether Systems Inc., or all or substantially all of the assets of Aether’sTransportation segment to one or more individuals, entities, or groups and, asa result, Mr. Briganti ceases to be employed by Aether and its subsidiaries(except if such termination results from his gross misconduct).

 

In addition, upon a triggeringevent, the parties agreed that all options, restricted stock and other equityinstruments granted prior to July 31, 2002 and held by Mr. Briganti will becomefully exercisable at the time of termination of his employment withAether.  The parties agreed that a “triggeringevent” will be defined as (i) a reduction in force or layoff at Aether Systems,Inc., if Mr. Briganti’s employment is terminated as part of such reduction orlayoff, (ii) sale of all or substantially all of the assets of Aether Systems,Inc., or all or substantially all of the assets of Aether’s Transportationsegment and, as a result Mr. Briganti ceases to be employed by Aether and itssubsidiaries (except if such termination results from gross misconduct); (iii)complete or substantially complete dissolution or liquidation of Aether Systems,Inc. or Aether’s Transportation segment and, as a result  Mr. Briganti ceases to be employed by Aetherand its subsidiaries (except if such termination results from grossmisconduct); (iv) any person or group acquires or attains ownership of morethan 50% of the Aether’s outstanding common stock; (v) completion of a mergeror consolidation of the Aether Systems, Inc. with or into any other entityunless Aether’s stockholders retain control of the new entity.

 

This agreement does not changeMr. Briganti’s status as an at-will employee.

 

----