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



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 As of the date hereof, I, Kurt R. Kneip, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Inter-Tel, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated. This written statement is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit accompanying this report and
shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. By:
    /s/  Kurt R. KneipName:
    Kurt R. KneipDated:   May 10, 2004
    
    Title:
    Chief Financial Officer 40
#### Walter P. Malesa, Respondent, v Kristi M. Burg et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 808]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Michael L. D’Amico, A.J.), entered January 5, 2012. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by granting the motion in part and dismissing the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained as a result of an automobile accident. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and Supreme Court denied their motion. In our view, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, with respect to two of the three categories of serious injury allegedly sustained by plaintiff. We therefore modify the order accordingly. We conclude that defendants established that plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether the injury was both permanent and consequential, i.e., important or significant *(see Kordana v Pomellito,*121 AD2d 783, 784 [1986], *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 848 [1986]). We further conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a significant limitation of use and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact with respect thereto *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Indeed, the evidence submitted by plaintiff in opposition to the motion does not provide “ ‘either a quantitative or qualitative assessment to differentiate serious injuries from *1411mild or moderate ones’ ” *(Secore v Allen,*27 AD3d 825, 827 [2006]; *see Scott v Aponte,*49 AD3d 1131, 1134 [2008]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the injuries sustained by plaintiff were caused by the accident, we conclude that plaintiffs proof “fell short of demonstrating that [the injuries] constituted a significant limitation” *(Scott,*49 AD3d at 1134). We agree with the court, however, that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the 90/180-day category *(see Rienzo v La Greco,*11 AD3d 1038 [2004]; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498, 498 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 812 [1999]).

Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 557 

To provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force or effect, to 

prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2005 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that Executive Order 13166 shall have no force 

or effect, to prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress makes the following findings: 

5 (1) On June 3, 1998, a Federal court ruled, in 

6 the case of Sandoval v. Hagan (7 F. Supp. 2d 

7 1234), that the prohibition against discrimination on 

8 account of ‘‘national origin’’ in the Civil Rights Act 

9 of 1964 includes a prohibition against discrimination 

10 on the basis of language, and therefore States are 
2 

•S 557 IS

1 required to provide public services in any language 

2 of the recipient’s choice. 

3 (2) On August 11, 2000, relying on that erro4 neous court opinion, President Clinton issued Execu5 tive Order 13166 mandating that all Federal agen6 cies provide services in the language of the eligible 

7 recipient. 

8 (3) On April 24, 2001, the United States Su9 preme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Al10 exander v. Sandoval (532 U.S. 275), eliminating any 

11 legal basis for Executive Order 13166. 

12 (4) The United States Constitution vests all 

13 lawmaking authority in the Congress of the United 

14 States, not in the executive or judicial branches. 

15 (5) Executive Order 13166 imposes upon the 

16 Federal Government the open-ended and incalculably 

17 expensive burden of providing translation services 

18 into potentially every language known to the human 

19 race. 

20 (6) Persons who are not proficient in English 

21 but who are entitled to access government services 

22 can often find more convenient and more reliable 

23 translation services from among their families, com24 munities, and similar affinity groups than from pro25 fessional translators. 
3 

•S 557 IS

1 SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER. 

2 Executive Order 13166, issued August 16, 2000 (65 

3 Fed. Reg. 50121) (relating to improving access to services 

4 for persons with limited English proficiency), is null and 

5 void and shall have no force or effect. 

6 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS FOR CER7 TAIN PURPOSES. 

8 No funds appropriated pursuant to any provision of 

9 law may be used to promulgate or enforce any executive 

10 order that creates an entitlement to services provided in 

11 any language other than English. 

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stuart Wayne BRIDGES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-40439

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2009.

Stevan Buys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lars Robert Isaacson, Lewisville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Stuart Wayne Bridges has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Bridges has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,254
<PP&E>                                          55,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,687,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          832,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,032
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,681,490
<SALES>                                         12,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,000
<CGS>                                           52,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,335)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (52,335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLUT91000-L11400000-PH0000-24-1A]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Utah's Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC will meet as indicated below.

# DATES:

The Utah Resource Advisory Council (RAC)/Recreation RAC will meet June 19 (8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.) in Salt Lake City, Utah.

# ADDRESSES:

The Council will meet at the Radisson Hotel (Wasatch 4 meeting room), 215 West South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Sherry Foot, Special Programs Coordinator, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0155; phone (801) 539-4195.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Utah. Planned agenda topics include a welcome and introduction of new Council members; an update of Utah-BLM issues; and, recreation fee increase proposals from the Bureau of Land Management (Sand Flats Recreation Area and Moab campgrounds) and U.S. Forest Service (Christmas tree permit fee increases) for the RAC's approval. A half-hour public comment period, where the public may address the Council, is scheduled from 3:15 p.m.-3:45 p.m. Written comments may be sent to the Bureau of Land Management addressed listed above. All meetings are open to the public; however, transportation, lodging, and meals are the responsibility of the participating public.

Dated: May 5, 2009.

Selma Sierra,

State Director.

[FR Doc. E9-11023 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,300,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     394,100,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (81,900,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             466,400,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 187,200,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               466,400,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            80,200,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,800,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (5,500,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,200,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,700,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,200,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,500,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,500,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to Contribution Agreement Letter, dated August 17,2004



 Exhibit 10.13 
  
 NORCRAFT HOLDINGS, L.P. 
 3020 Denmark Ave. Suite 100 
 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 
  
 August 17, 2004 
  
 Mr. Mark Buller 
 Buller Norcraft Holdings,
L.L.C. 
 3020 Denmark Ave., Suite 100 
 Eagan, MN 55121

  
 Re: Amendment to Contribution Agreement 
  
 Dear Mark: 
  
 Reference is made to the Contribution Agreement, dated as of October 21, 2003, by and among Norcraft Holdings, L.P, a Delaware limited
partnership (“Holdings”), Norcraft Companies, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Norcraft”), Buller Norcraft Holdings, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the “Buller Investor”), and Mark Buller, David
Buller, James Buller, Phil Buller, Herb Buller and Erna Buller. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Contribution Agreement. 
  
 This letter, when countersigned by the Buller Investor, confirms our agreement that the
Contribution Agreement is hereby amended as set forth in this letter pursuant to Section 9(b) of the Contribution Agreement. 
  
 Effective as of the date of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Agreement of Partnership, dated as of the date hereof, among Norcraft GP, L.L.C., SKM Norcraft
Corp., Trimaran Cabinet Corp., and Buller Norcraft Holdings, L.L.C. (the “First Amendment”), the purchase prices with respect to the Purchase Right granted to the Buller Investor in Section 3 of the Contribution Agreement shall each be
reduced by an amount equal to the First Distribution Per Unit Amount, as defined in the First Amendment. 
  
 Nothing in this letter shall be taken to alter or modify any terms or conditions of the Purchase Right other than these purchase prices, and all other original terms and conditions both of the Purchase Right and of
the Contribution Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 







 Sincerely, 
  

			
	NORCRAFT HOLDINGS, L.P.
		
	 By:
	 	 NORCRAFT GP, L.L.C.

	 	 	 Its General Partner

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Leigh Ginter


	 Name:
	 	 Leigh Ginter

	 Title:
	 	 Authorized Person


  

			
	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
	BULLER NORCRAFT HOLDINGS, L.L.C.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Mark Buller


	 	 	 Mark Buller

	 	 	 Authorized Person


  

 -2-
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 NeoStem, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
endedJune 30, 2010filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry A. May, Chief
Financial 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, 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 as amended ; and
 
 
 (2)
              The information contained in the
      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of
      the Company for the periods
presented.
 
 Dated:August 16,
2010
 
 /s/ Larry A.
      MayLarry A.
  MayChief Financial
      Officer
 
 The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NeoStem, Inc. and will be
retained by NeoStem, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### THI CUU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72245.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 7, 2009.*

Filed May 11, 2009.

Farah Loftus, Law Offices of Farah Lof-tus, Century City, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-*573fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Yanal H. Yousef, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Cuu Thi, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which determined that he was not eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and ordered his deportation to Vietnam. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we will discuss them only as necessary to explain our decision. Contrary to the government’s argument, we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See Morales v. Gonzales,*478 F.3d 972, 980 (9th Cir.2007). We review for substantial evidence, *see id.*at 977, and deny the petition for review.

Petitioner expressed a speculative fear that he would face harsh conditions if removed to Vietnam. As the BIA has held, “[sjpecific grounds must exist that indicate the individual would be personally at risk” to warrant CAT relief. *In re S-V-,*22 I. & N. Dec. 1306, 1313 (BIA 2000) *overruled on other grounds by Zheng v. Ashcroft,*332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2003). The administrative record in this case supports the BIA’s determination that the “specific grounds” that Petitioner alleged entitled him to CAT relief did not make it more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Vietnam. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Thus, “[w]e cannot say on this record that the evidence compels” a finding that Petitioner is more likely than not to be tortured. *See Zhang v. Ashcroft,*388 F.3d 713, 722 (9th Cir.2004) (per cu-riam). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is not eligible for CAT relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Mazda IP Decision 01192021


Download file: Mazda IP Decision 01192021
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >