alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 5.4


                       DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP

            44TH FLOOR 1 FIRST CANADIAN PLACE TORONTO CANADA M5X 1B1
                    TELEPHONE: 416.863.0900 FAX: 416.863.0871



                                                                 File No. 203336

                                                                January 27, 2004

British Columbia Securities Commission
Alberta Securities Commission
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission, Securities Division
The Manitoba Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
Commission des valeurs mobilieres du Quebec
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Administrator, Securities Act - New Brunswick
Registrar of Securities - Prince Edward Island
Securities Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador


Dear Sirs:

                           RE: HYDROGENICS CORPORATION


     We refer to the (final) short form base PREP prospectus (the "Prospectus")
dated January 27, 2004 of Hydrogenics Corporation.

     We hereby consent to the use of our firm name on the face page of the
Prospectus and under the heading "Plan of Distribution" and consent to the use
of our firm name and the reference to our opinions under the headings "Legal
Matters" and "Eligibility for Investment" in the Prospectus.

     We confirm that we have read the Prospectus and have no reason to believe
that there is any misrepresentation in the information contained in the
Prospectus that is derived from our opinions referred to above or that is within
our knowledge as a result of the services we performed in connection with such
opinions.

     This letter is solely for the information of the addressees and is not to
be referred to in whole or in part in the Prospectus or in any other similar
document and is not to be relied upon for any other purpose.



                                    Yours very truly,


                                    (signed) Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41141 Summary Calendar

TROY GENE HLAVINKA, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:96-CV-163

- - - - - - - - - - September 2, 1997 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Troy Gene Hlavinka, Texas state prisoner #608910, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court previously granted Hlavinka a certificate of appealability on the issue whether a TDCJ rule, enacted subsequent to the date of Hlavinka’s offense, directing that forfeited good-time credits would no longer be restored, deprived Hlavinka of his rightsNo. 96-41141 -2- under the Ex Post Facto Clause. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Hallmark v. Johnson , ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. July 25, 1997, No. 95-20752), 1997 WL 420147. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 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 Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kaushik J. Dave, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Kaushik J. Dave Kaushik J. Dave


President and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





Date:  April 10, 2014
#### In the Matter of Koba Peradze, Petitioner, v Peter Forman, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 469]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Peter Forman, a Judge of the County Court, Dutchess County, to determine a motion made by the petitioner pursuant to CPL 440.10 in an underlying criminal action entitled *People v*
      *997
      *Peradze,*commenced in that court under indictment No. 50/01. Application by the petitioner to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person.

Ordered that the application to prosecute this proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Cohen, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Carl Daily, Appellant

No. 06

- 17

- 00038

- CV v.

Charles McMillan, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

15C1451 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burg ess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, Carl Daily, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED AUGUST 15, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COUR T JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
## BARRY G. JOHNSON Attorney at Law 2821 E. Lancaster Fort Worth, Texas 76103 817 - 531 - 9665 817 - 534 - 9888 Fax barrygj@aol.com September 19,2015 Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals PO Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Re: ISBELL, JOHN B. CCA Nos. PD - 0469 - 15, PD - 0470 - 15, PD - 0471 - 15, PD - 0472 - 15 COA Nos. 02- 14 - 00124 -CR, 02- 14 - 00125 -CR, 02- 14 - 00216 -CR, 02- 14 - 00217 - CR Trial Court Case Nos. 1290119D, 1290121D, 1290851D, 1290852D Dear Sirs: I will represent Mr. Isbell in these cases. Sincerely, 

# /s/ Barry G. Johnson

BARRY G. JOHNSON Bat # 10683000 Code: J18 PD-0469&0470&0471&0472-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/21/2015 12:00:00 AM Accepted 9/21/2015 7:54:49 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00354-CR

INA LEE TURNER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-06200-CRF-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ina Lee Turner perfected this appeal from his conviction for felony driving while 

intoxicated. He has since died in prison. Turner’s counsel has filed a motion to abate 

the appeal supported by a certified copy of Turner’s death certificate. See Freeman v. 

State, 11 S.W.3d 240, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (per curiam). Turner’s death deprives 

this Court of jurisdiction. Id. Accordingly, the motion is granted, and this appeal is 

permanently abated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.1(a)(2); Freeman, 11 S.W.3d at 240.
Turner v. State Page 2

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal permanently abated

Opinion delivered and filed October 1, 2008

Do not publish

[CRPM]
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1404-1405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00157]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-697-001]


Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is January 26, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access

[[Page 1405]]

who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e787b6c7d71505257505b6d4b4e4e514c4a7e585b4c5d10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3858691808cadafaaada690b6b3b3acb1b783a5a6b1a0eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 5, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00157 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements as of and for the six months ended July 4, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000317540
<NAME>                                       Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUL-04-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                                8,209
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        73,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                            649
<INVENTORY>                                          48,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    169,719
<PP&E>                                              667,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                      221,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,097,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               132,550
<BONDS>                                             739,518
<COMMON>                                             12,423
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                           22,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,097,044
<SALES>                                             481,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    481,300
<CGS>                                               273,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       273,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    178,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   24,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       2,594
<INCOME-TAX>                                            908
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   1,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          1,686
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.20



</TABLE>
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40962 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. JAV I ER H U ER TA
- RO D RI G U EZ , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- C R - 178- 1 B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alPu bl i c D ef enderappoi nt ed t o r epr es ent Javi erH uer t aR odri gu ez ha s m oved f or l eave t o w i t h draw an d has f i l ed a bri ef

i n accor da n ce w i t h A n d er s v . C a lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U . S . 738 ( 196 7) . H u ert a- R odri gu ez ha s not f i l ed a respon se. O u r i n dep en den trevi ew of the rec ord an d coun sel ’ s bri ef di scl oses n o n on frivo l ou s is s u e fo r ap p ea l . A ccord i n gly, cou n sel’ s m oti on f or leav e to w i t hdr aw i s G RA N TE D , c o uns e li s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he rr e s po ns ibi l i t i e s he r e i n, a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges McClanahan, Haley and Senior Judge Willis 

CHRISTOPHER D. GRAY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0398-10-2 PER CURIAM 

JULY 27, 2010 

COFFEEWOOD CORRECTIONAL CENTER/ 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Michael L. Ritchie; Ritchie Law Firm, P.L.C., on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr., 

Deputy Attorney General; Peter R. Messitt, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Scott John Fitzgerald, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Christopher D. Gray appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

finding that Gray did not meet his burden in establishing the causal connection between his low 

back injury and the compensable work accident. We have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Gray v. Coffeewood Correctional 

Center, VWC File No. 233-13-98 (Feb. 9, 2010). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
#### YUE YUN LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71453.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

David Z. Su, Esq., Law Offices of David Z. Su, El Monte, CA, for Petitioner.

Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Yue Yun Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on implausible testimony regarding material aspects of petitioner’s claim and a failure to provide easily available corroborating evidence. *See id.*at 1043-45.

*155Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir .2003).

Because petitioner failed to raise a CAT claim in his opening brief, he waived this claim. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Composite Technology Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Domonic J. Carney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
Company.





Date:
May 10, 2010





/s/
      Domonic J. CarneyDomonic
      J. CarneyChief
      Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial and
Accounting  Officer)
Exhibit 4.1







 


 





FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment
(the “Amendment”), dated as of August 19, 2015, and executed among Rocky Brands, Inc., an Ohio corporation, (the “Company”)
and Computershare Trust Company, N.A., a federally chartered trust company (“Computershare”), hereby amends the Amended
and Restated Rights Agreement between the Company and Computershare dated as of June 7, 2012 (the “Rights Agreement”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS, the
Company and Computershare desire to amend the Rights Agreement to provide for a new Expiration Date.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties agree as follows:


 


Section 1. Amendment
of Rights Agreement. The Rights Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


Section 1(n) is hereby
amended by deleting the definition of “Expiration Date” in its entirety and substituting the following definition:


 


“Expiration
Date” shall mean August 19, 2015, unless the Distribution Date shall occur on or prior to such date and the Rights shall
have separated from the Common Shares pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, in which case “Expiration Date” shall
mean the date which is the third anniversary of the Distribution Date.


 


Section 2. Effect
of this Amendment; Certification.  It is the intent of the parties that this Amendment constitutes an amendment of the
Plan as contemplated by Section 27 thereof.  This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date hereof as if executed
by both parties hereto on such date. The officer of the Company executing this Amendment hereby certifies to the Rights Agent that
the amendments and supplements to the Plan set forth in this Amendment are in compliance with the terms of Section 27 of the Plan.


 


Section 3. Continued
Effectiveness. The parties hereto hereby acknowledge and agree that, except as specifically supplemented and amended, changed
or modified hereby, the Rights Agreement, as previously amended to the date hereof, shall remain in full force and effect in accordance
with its terms.


 


Section 4. Execution
in Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes
be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.


 


Section 5. Terms.
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, or unless the context otherwise requires, all terms used herein have the meanings
assigned to them in the Rights Agreement.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and effective as of the day and year above written.


 


 


	 	Rocky BRANDS, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    James E. McDonald
	 	 	James E. McDonald,
	 	 	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Paul R. Capozzi
	 	Its:	Paul R. Capozzi,
                                         SVP Investor Services