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

Certification of
Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 of
Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-QSB) upon my best knowledge and belief fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences,
Inc.

|                        |                                                                                                              | 
|----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated:  August 14, 2006 | /s/ John E. Yetter                                                                                           | 
|                        | John E. Yetter, CPA
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer) |
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: BOBBY FITZGERALD PRINCE,

SR.,

 Movant.

 No. 10-6060

ORDER

Having received no contrary directive from the court, the motion filed by Bobby

Fitzgerald Prince, Sr. on March 11, 2010 seeking leave to file a successive habeas

application is DENIED by operation of the court’s order issued in connection with In re

Prince, Case No. 09-6112 (10th Cir. June 29, 2009) (unpublished) (any successive habeas

application filed by Mr. Prince is deemed denied on the 30th day after filing unless the

court directs otherwise). 

 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6060 Document: 01018401411 Date Filed: 04/13/2010 Page: 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KAREEM BROWN.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Apollo 15 and the Lunar Roving Vehicle

On July 31, 1971, the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) made its lunar debut.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/apollo-15-lunar-roving-vehicle/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASASize1041x1041pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 27, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 67011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27668]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 67011]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2011-11 of August 10, 
                2010

                
Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance 
                to the Government of Colombia

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the 
                Secretary of Defense

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 
                of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
                Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby 
                certify, with respect to Colombia, that (1) 
                interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be 
                primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that 
                country's airspace is necessary, because of the 
                extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking 
                to the national security of that country; and (2) that 
                country has appropriate procedures in place to protect 
                against innocent loss of life in the air and on the 
                ground in connection with such interdiction, which 
                shall at a minimum include effective means to identify 
                and warn an aircraft before the use of force is 
                directed against the aircraft.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register and 
                to notify the Congress of this determination. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    WASHINGTON, August 10, 2010

[FR Doc. 2010-27668
Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
#### Chapman *v.*Harper and Another.

*Saturday, January*11, 1845.

In a suit on a promissory note by an indorsee, the note and indorsement, if *oyer*of them has been asked and given, are a part of the declaration.

And if the suit on such note be by two persons as indorsees, and the indorsement shown on *oyer*be to only one of them, the suit cannot be maintained.

ERROR, to the *Kosciusko*Circuit Court.

*L. L.*Pratt, for the plaintiff.

*J. A.*Liston, *J. B,*Niles, and *A. L.*Osborn, for the defendants.

Sullivan, J.

— This suit was commenced by *Harper*and Raiguel, indorsees of Liston, against *Chapman*on a promissory note. The declaration is in the usual form. The defendant pleaded, among other'pleas, *nil debet.*The cause was tried by the Court, and judgment given for the plaintiffs.

Before the defendant pleaded, he demanded *oyer*of the writing on which the suit was founded. It was given without objection, and a note corresponding to that set out in the declaration, indorsed to *Harper*alone, was produced.

Several questions are presented for our consideration, but the only one that need be noticed is, whether, if *oyer*be demanded of a promissory note, and it be given without objection, the note thereby becomes a part of the record.

It is well known that *oyer*is not properly demandable of an instrument not under seal, and if it be asked of such an instrument, it may be refused. But although it cannot be compelled, yet if it be in fact granted, the party who demanded it may consider the whole of what is set forth as making a part of his adversary’s pleading, and use it accordingly. *Smith v.*Yeomans, 1 Saund. 316, note *2.*—Jeffereysr. White, Doug. 476.—1 Tidd’s Pr. *502.*—Deming v. Bullitt, 1 Blackf. 241. According to the principle of the cases cited, the note with the indorsement became a part of the declaration in this case, and showed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain this suit.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
Order entered March 15, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00124

- CV

ALPHA OMEGA CHL, INC ., Appellant

V.

BRIAN P. MIN AND MIN LAW FIRM, P.C., Appellee s
On Ap peal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 07799



### O RDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.
This Court issued its opinion on the merits in this appeal on June 16, 2016. By order

dated October 4, 2016, the Court a bated this appeal due to the suggestion of bankruptcy filed by
appellee Brian P. Min. The bankruptcy court has discharged Mr. Min’s bankruptcy case.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate fort h with.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


National Institutes of Health, et al.; Notice of Consolidated 
Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 10-055. Applicant: National Institutes of Health, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL 
Limited, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR 57738, September 22, 
2010.
    Docket Number: 10-056. Applicant: University of Notre Dame, 
Procurement Services, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Instrument: Electron 
Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: 
See notice at 75 FR 57738, September 22, 2010.
    Docket Number: 10-057. Applicant: Curators of the University of 
Missouri, Rolla, MO 56049. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 
75 FR 57738, September 22, 2010.
    Docket Number: 10-058. Applicant: SUNY Upstate Medical University, 
Syracuse, NY 13210. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
JEOL, Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 75 FR 57738, September 
22, 2010.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Gregory W. Campbell,
Acting Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-27889 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,367-01
EX P ARTE MICHAEL D. BAXLEY, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1476368-A IN THE 176 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 4 1 8 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offe nse of ag g rava ted assault - f

amily member a

nd sentenc ed to imprisonment for fifte en year s. The trial court signe d an order desig nating issues on Dec ember 3, 2018. After 180 day s from the day the writ application was serve d on the State, the writ application was forwa rded to this Court. T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.5. We rema nd this application to the 176 Di s t rict Court of Har ris County to allow the trial t h judge to complete an e videntiary investigation and enter

finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The

issues shal l b e resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of time shall be obtained fr om this C ourt.

Filed: Oc tober 23, 2019 Do not publish
O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ j oint p etition for d isciplinary a ction

,

wherein Respondent agreed that his conduct, as described in the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals’ June 13, 2024 opinion and order, violated Rules 1.4(a), 1.16(d),

5.1(b), and 5.1(c)(2) of the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct

, it is

this 2 5 th day o f September 202 4

, by the Supreme Court of Maryland,

ORDERED that the joint petition for reciprocal action is granted . P ursuant

to Rule 19

- 737(f), corresponding discipline is imposed and John P. Mahoney is

suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for 60 days, stayed as

to all but 30 days, effective nunc pro tunc to July 13, 2024, followed by one year of

probation with the condition that Respondent comply with the probation terms set

forth by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in In re John P. Mahoney , 24

-

BG

- 0466

.

/s/ Matthew J. Fader

Chief Justice ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

JOHN P. MAHONEY *

*

*

*

*

* IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF MARYLAND

AG Docket No. 11

September Term, 20 2 4
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2054

To require that Federal forfeiture funds be used, in part, to clean up 

methamphetamine laboratories. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2004

Mr. JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To require that Federal forfeiture funds be used, in part, 

to clean up methamphetamine laboratories.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Emergency 

5 Meth Lab Cleanup Funding Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FUNDING FROM TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND. 

7 Chapter 97 of title 31, United States Code, is amend8 ed—

9 (1) by redesignating section 9703 (as added by 

10 Public Law 103–62) as section 9703A; 
2

•S 2054 IS 

1 (2) by moving section 9703 (as added by Public 

2 Law 102–393) so as to appear after section 9702; 

3 and 

4 (3) in section 9703(a)(1), by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(K)(i) Payment to the designated State, 

7 local, or tribal law enforcement, environmental, 

8 or health entity for experts and consultants 

9 needed to clean up any area formerly used as 

10 a methamphetamine laboratory. 

11 ‘‘(ii) If a methamphetamine laboratory is 

12 located on private property, not more than 90 

13 percent of the costs may be paid only if—

14 ‘‘(I) the property owner did not have 

15 knowledge of the existence or operation of 

16 such laboratory before the law enforcement 

17 action to close it; or 

18 ‘‘(II) the property owner notifies law 

19 enforcement not later than 24 hours after 

20 discovering the existence of such labora21 tory.’’.

Æ
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration Disaster Declaration # 12368 and # 12369
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA—1946—DR), dated 10/26/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides associated with Tropical Storm Otto *Incident Period:*
                         10/04/2010 through 10/08/2010. *Effective Date:*
                         10/26/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/27/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/26/2011.
 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: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/26/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Municipalities: Aibonito, Anasco, Guanica, Guayama, Jayuya, Lares, Las Marias, Maricao, Mayaguez, Patillas, Ponce, Sabana Grande, Salinas, San German, Utuado, Yabucoa, Yauco. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 123686 and for economic injury is 123696. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-27977 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39


                           2000 OFFICER INCENTIVE PLAN


PURPOSE: To reward Officers of Fresh Choice, Inc. (Vice Presidents and above)
for accomplishments resulting in a year-end profit for the Company.

ELIGIBILITY: Officers of the Company which include Vice Presidents and above who
are actively employed by Fresh Choice, Inc. on December 31, 2000.

PLAN YEAR: The plan begins on December 27, 1999 and ends on December 31, 2000.

INCENTIVE PAY AVAILABLE: The incentive pay pool is equal to 15% of the total
participants salaries at plan plus 25% of before tax earnings above plan. The
pool is allocated among the designated officers based on a predetermined
percentage amount. See attached schedule.

INCENTIVE PAY ELIGIBILITY: PARTICIPANTS ARE ONLY ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE INCENTIVE
PAY IF THE ESTABLISHED BEFORE-TAX PROFIT TARGETS ARE ATTAINED. See attached
schedule. The 2000 targets include the expense of this program.

DISTRIBUTION OF INCENTIVE PAY: Incentive pay will be paid as soon as practical
after year end financials are audited and provided that the Company met or
exceeded defined levels of performance.

PLAN INTENT: Fresh Choice intends to maintain the plan under the terms listed
above. However, Fresh Choice reserves the right to modify or terminate the plan
at any time.
NUMBER 13-17-00471-CR 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

DANIEL STEVEN DELAGARZA, Appellant,

 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

A jury convicted appellant Daniel Steven DeLaGarza of felony theft of property, 

less than $2,500.00, with two prior misdemeanor theft convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 31.03 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). By one issue DeLaGarza appeals 

the written judgment. We affirm.
2

I. BACKGROUND

DeLaGarza was convicted of felony theft of property, less than $2,500.00, for 

stealing a nail pouch, a measuring tape, and wire cutters from Wal-Mart. See id. 

DeLaGarza elected to have the jury assess punishment. Punishment was assessed by 

the jury at two years in state jail and a $2,500.00 fine. In the record, the trial judge’s oral 

sentencing was two years in state jail and a $2,000.00 fine. In the written judgment, the 

trial judge sentenced DeLaGarza to two years in state jail and a $2,500.00 fine. 

II. DISCUSSION

In his sole issue, DeLaGarza argues the trial court erred by not orally sentencing 

him according to the jury’s punishment assessment. Article 42.01 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure declares that the defendant should be punished in accordance with the jury’s 

verdict. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01, § 1(8) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st 

C.S.). Where the trial court’s judgment differs from the jury’s verdict, the judgment should 

be reformed to reflect the jury’s verdict. Chudleigh v. State, 540 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1976). Where the oral pronouncement is ambiguous, “the jury’s punishment 

verdict, the court’s pronouncement, and the written judgment should be read together in 

an effort to resolve the ambiguity.” Aguilar v. State, 202 S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. App.—

Waco 2006, pet. ref’d). 

The jury issued the authorized verdict of two years in state jail and a fine of 

$2,500.00 which is reflected in the final written judgment. Because the written judgment 

accurately punished DeLaGarza in accordance with the jury’s verdict, it is clear that the 

oral pronouncement of the fine being $2,000.00 was a misstatement by the trial court. 

Therefore, we affirm the written judgment of the trial court which conforms to the jury’s 
3

assessed punishment. See id.; see also Ward v. State, 143 S.W.3d 271, 276 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2004, pet. ref’d) (finding that an “appellate court must give a jury verdict a 

liberal construction, and, if the jury’s intention may be reasonably ascertained, the verdict 

is sufficient”).

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the written judgment of the trial court.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

14th day of June, 2018.
#### DAVID FLETCHER v. GARY J. HILTON

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
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 East Delta Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 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 operation of the
Company.

/s/ Victor I.H. Sun
---------------------------------
Victor I.H. Sun
President, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### LOUIS MANNA v. GARY J. HILTON.

June 13, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.