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

Certification of the Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    C. Kirk Peacock               
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | C. Kirk Peacock                      
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3019

BRIAN K. NEWSOME,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

AT0752080282-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER 

Brian K. Newsome moves for reconsideration of the court's December 31, 2008

order dismissing his petition for review for failure to file a brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion will be granted, the mandate will be recalled, and the petition will be

reinstated if Newsome files his brief within 21 days of the date of filing of this order.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 13 2009	/s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Brian K. Newsome (copy of Merit Systems Protection Board's certified index and

informal brief form enclosed) FILED Dawn E. Goodman, Esq.	 U.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

s17	

FEB 1 3 2009

111/2111-10Rimu

CLERK
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF MOSS ADAMS LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-18945) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and
the Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90524) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Option Plan of
Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated of our report dated March 29, 2006 with
respect to the financial statements of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ MOSS ADAMS LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2006
**Exhibit32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Anacomp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey R. Cramer, ChiefExecutive 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 (“Section906”), that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  December 22, 2003 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           | /s/ Jeffrey R. Cramer |   |
|                           | Jeffrey R. Cramer |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toAnacomp, Inc. and will be retained by Anacomp, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Anacomp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Linster W. Fox, ChiefFinancial 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 (“Section906”), that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  December 22, 2003 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           | /s/ Linster W. Fox |   |
|                           | Linster W. Fox |
|                           | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toAnacomp, Inc. and will be retained by Anacomp, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1230

_____________________________

MANUEL FUERTES,

Appellant,

v.

MORE BAKERY, INC./

AMTRUST NORTH

AMERICA,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Ellen H. Lorenzen, Judge.

Date of Accident: May 25, 2016.

November 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.
2

_____________________________

Joey D. Oquist, St. Petersburg, and Bill McCabe, Longwood, for 

Appellant.

Rayford H. Taylor of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., Atlanta, and Robert 

J. Grace, Tampa, for Appellees.
Order entered February 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 19
- 00542
- CV QADREE CAMPBELL, Appellant

V. ANGELA MARIE PECINA A/K/A ANGELA HOWELL AND GREGORY OLI VAREZ PECINA, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 004
- 01649
- 2018

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 26, 2020 motion for an extension of
time to file his brief on the merits. We G RANT the motion. We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellant on February 26, 2020 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

                            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 Anaren,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended  June 30,  2008 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Lawrence A. Sala,
President and 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 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 results of operations of
      the Company.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
-------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer
September 15, 2008

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

<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Anaren,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended  June 30,  2008 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, George A. Blanton,
Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  Treasurer  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 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 results of operations of
      the Company.

/s/ George A. Blanton
------------------------------------------------------
George A. Blanton
Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
September 15, 2008

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Anaren, Inc. and will be retained by Anaren, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered December 13 ,2012

In The

No. 05-12-00636-CR

CEDRIC DERRELL MILLAGE, Appellant

VO

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80247-07

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make fmdings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 ̄ The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall

make a finding to that effect.

 ̄ If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the

appeal.
The trial court shall next determine: (l) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings m this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can

be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to tmn~smit a supplemental record, contaimng the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,

whichever is earlier.

DAVID L. GES

JUSTICE
MD Helicopters MD500/MD530

Audio Requirements for USFS Cooperators 

rn 

rn RX 

ICS 

TX -Radio Transmit Capability 

RX -Radio Receive Capability 

ICS -Intercom Capability 

April 9, 2024
MD Helicopters MD500/MD530

Audio Requirements for USFS Contracted 

Helicopters Approved for Passengers 

rn TX 

RX 

ICS 

rn 

TX 

RX 

ICS 

TX - Radio Transmit Capability 

RX - Radio Receive Capability 

ICS - Intercom Capability
#### UNITED STATES v. WARNER et al.

Civ. A. No. 3167.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

July 22, 1948.

Arthur A. Maguire, U. S. Atty., of Scranton, Pa., and Thomas Wood, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Williamsport, Pa., for the Government.

John R. Lashley, Jr., of Waynesboro, Pa., and Edwin D. Strife, of Chambersburg, Pa., for defendants.

WATSON, District Judge.

This is a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The portion of the complaint complained of reads as follows:

> “On March.8, 1945, the commodities, materials, equipment and supplies referred to in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, were all either damaged' or destroyed by a fire in said warehouse, which fire was caused by the negligence of the defendants, their agents, servants and employees.”

The defendants contend,’in support of their motion, that the allegations of negligence. are not sufficiently specific and do not afford them an opportunity to prepare a responsive pleading.

The attention of the Court has been directed to the illustrative form of a Complaint for Negligence, '28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, Appendix of Forms, Form 9. This form contains the following allegation as to negligence:

> ,“On June 1, 1936, in a public highway called Boylston Street in Boston, Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.”

The Federal Rules of Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, as amended, contain the following:

> “Rule 84. Forms. The forms contained in the Appendix of Forms are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate.”

The language in the Complaint as to the alleged negligence is almost identical with that contained in the illustrative form referred to, and the illustrative form was undoubtedly followed by the plaintiff in the preparation of the Complaint.

It seems clear that 'the allegation as to negligence adopted by the plaintiff in this case meets the requirements of the Rules and is, therefore, sufficient.

The Complaint is certainly sufficiently definite to enable the defendants to frame their answer. If the defendants desire to secure more detailed information as to how the plaintiff intends to prove its allegation as to the negligence of the defendants, they must look to other provisions of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provide for the obtaining of such details.

Now, July 22, 1948, the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  this
Consolidated  Statement of Financial Condition at March 31, 1997 (Unaudited) and
the  Consolidated  Statement  of Income for the Six Months  Ended March 31, 1997
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              697,631
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3,840,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                        154,059
<INVENTORY>                                       2,016,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7,326,586
<PP&E>                                            1,046,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                      572,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8,396,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,425,210
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                         675,000
<COMMON>                                              3,523
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8,396,670
<SALES>                                           9,031,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9,031,066
<CGS>                                             6,163,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8,529,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  125,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     501,399
<INCOME-TAX>                                         58,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 443,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        443,399
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .06


</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41031

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS ALONSO-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-136-1

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

Before REAVLEY, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos

Alonso-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
ACCEPTED

04-14-00800-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

2/19/2015 9:55:08 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 2/19/2015 9:55:08 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           7,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,246
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    301,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               688,431
<PP&E>                                       3,051,532
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,388,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,487,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          543,929
<BONDS>                                        498,446
<COMMON>                                        15,604
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,162,453<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,487,718
<SALES>                                      3,606,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,595,526
<CGS>                                        2,673,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  361,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               356,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                161,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                    56,653
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            104,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Additional Paid-in capital     450,601
Ret. earnings unappropriated   711,852
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### PECHEUR LOZENGE CO., INC. *v.*NATIONAL CANDY CO., INC.

No. 648.

Argued March 10, 1942.

Decided March 30, 1942.

*Mr. Alfred J. L’Heureux,*with whom *Mr. Joseph Fairbanks*was on the brief, for petitioner.

*Mr. James D. Carpenter, Jr.,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner brought this suit in the district court to recover damages and for an injunction restraining trademark infringement and unfair competition. There was diversity of citizenship, and the bill of complaint alleged that “this suit arises under the Trademark Laws of the United States” and that petitioner’s wrapper design “was registered in the United States Patent Office by the plaintiff on May 1, 1936, under the No. 47748.” It prayed treble damages “in accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law of 1906,” and was amended to allege registration of a second wrapper design in the Patent Office under the No. 46862.

A decree for petitioner, 36 F. Supp. 730, was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 122 F. 2d 318. Both courts below having failed to consider or apply local law, we granted certiorari, 314 U. S. 603, in order to determine whether local law or federal law should *667have been applied in a suit for infringement of a trademark registered under the Trademark Act of 1905, 33 Stat. 724, and we requested counsel “to present their views as to whether state law governs and, if so, what the applicable state law is.”

The opinions below, the printed record and the petition for certiorari give no indication that the suit was not founded upon a trademark registered under the 1905 Act, as the bill of complaint had made it appear. But an examination of the original exhibits, not printed in the record, and of petitioner’s brief on the merits here, discloses that the registration referred to is that of petitioner’s labels under the Copyright Law of the United States, and not registration under the Trademark Law. It thus appears that petitioner has alleged no cause of action under the Copyright Law and is not entitled to the benefits of registration under the Trademark Law. The only cause of action that this record could possibly support is for unfair competition and common law “trademark infringement,” to which local law applies. See *Fashion Guild*v. *Trade Commission,*312 U. S. 457, 468.

The decree will be vacated without costs in this Court to either party, and the cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals, to afford it opportunity to apply the appropriate local law, and for such further or other proceedings as in the circumstances may be proper.

*Decree vacated and cause remanded.*