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

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Focus Enhancements, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Gary L. Williams    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                    |
| Gary L. Williams        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 14, 2007            |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Infinite Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


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

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



/s/ MICHAEL S. SMITH
---------------------
    Michael S. Smith
    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

July 26, 2005
ex10_55.htm









Exhibit 10.55







SECOND AMENDMENT OF


SHARE EXCHANGE AND CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT







This Second Amendment is entered into as of November 30, 2012 and amends that certain Share Exchange and Contribution Agreement, as previously amended (the Agreement), among LifeMap Sciences, Inc., a California corporation (the Company) and Alfred D. Kingsley and Greenway Partners, L.P. (collectively, Investor).







1.           The definition of Second Outside Date found is Section 1(j) of the Agreement is amended to read:  “Second Outside Date” means December 14, 2012.







2.           All other terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


 


 


LIFEMAP SCIENCES, INC.


 



	
  

	
By:

	
/s/ David Warshawsky                                 

	 











	
  

	
Title:

	
Chief Executive Officer                                

	 







 


/s/ Alfred D. Kingsley                                                                       


Alfred D. Kingsley




 


Greenway Partners, Ltd.








	
  

	
By:

	
Greenhouse Partners, L.P.,







its general partner













	
  

	
By:

	
/s/ Alfred D. Kingsley                  

	 





Alfred D. Kingsley, General Partner
Unemployment rates by county and disaster assistance eligibility,

Mississippi, August 2005, not seasonally adjusted

7.0% or more

6.0% to 6.9%

5.0% to 5.9%

4.0% to 4.9%

3.9% or below

Unemployment Rate

Pearl

River

6.6%

Hancock

5.9%

Harrison

5.8%

Jackson

6.1%

George

Stone 9.6%

6.9%

Forrest

6.7%

Greene

Lamar 10.1%

5.5% Perry

8.7%

Jones

Jefferson 5.8%

Davis

10.8%

Wayne

7.1%

Covington

6.7% Lawrence

8.1%

Wilkinson

11.4%

Pike

8.2%

Marion

Amite 8.3%

7.5% Walthall

7.9%

Franklin

8.7%

Lincoln

7.2%

Adams

8.8%

Jefferson

15.1%

Copiah

8.2%

Claiborne

11.9% Simpson

6.5%

Smith

6.1%

Madison

5.3%

Rankin

4.8%

Warren

6.9%

Hinds

6.6%

Attala

7.9%

Webster

8.6%

Choctaw

8.3%

Chickasaw

10.5%

Lee

6.9%

Itawamba

7.2%

Lowndes

7.8%

Monroe

9.4%

Clay

11.3%

Oktibbeha

6.7%

Winston

8.2%

Noxubee

10.9%

Kemper

9.2% Neshoba

6.1%

Leake

7.0%

Jasper

8.1%

Clarke

7.9%

Lauderdale

7.4%

Newton

6.3%

Scott

6.0%

(State rate = 7.0%; U.S. rate = 4.9%)

Marshall

10.8%

DeSoto

3.6%

Tate

5.3%

Coahoma

10.7%

Benton

13.0% Tippah

7.4%

Panola

8.4%

Quitman

8.0%

Bolivar

9.1%

Tunica

6.0%

Yalobusha

8.4%

Lafayette

5.2%

Tallahatchie

8.4%

Pontotoc

5.8%

Calhoun

7.0%

Union

6.8%

Prentiss

7.7%

Tishomingo

9.2%

Alcorn

7.1%

Carroll

7.4%

Sunflower

10.4%

Leflore

10.0%

Grenada

7.3%

Montgomery

8.8%

Humphreys

8.2%

Washington

11.3% Holmes

14.1%

Yazoo

9.7% Issaquena

7.7%

Sharkey

8.8%

All Mississippi counties are eligible for

disaster assistance as of September 6.

NOTE:
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 102

Honoring Erika Harold, Miss America 2003. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2003

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois (for himself, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. EVANS, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. CRANE, Mr. WELLER, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. 

DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. 

COSTELLO, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. 

GUTIERREZ, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. RUSH) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION

Honoring Erika Harold, Miss America 2003.

Whereas Erika Harold’s remarkable achievements and her resolve to empower youth against violence and degradation 

resulted in her winning the 2003 Miss America Pagaent; 

Whereas Miss Harold was elected to Phi Beta Kappa at the 

University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, and 

was chosen to be a University of Illinois Chancellor 

Scholar; 

Whereas Miss Harold received first prize in the Afro-American Studies research paper competition; 

Whereas Miss Harold was selected as a finalist for the Truman Scholarship; 
2

•HRES 102 IH 

Whereas Miss Harold, in her capacity as Miss America, is 

pursuing the noble cause of ending youth violence; 

Whereas Miss Harold has postponed attending Harvard Law 

School so that she may devote her time to promoting her 

campaign against youth violence; 

Whereas Miss Harold is National Spokesperson for the Teen 

Victims Project of the National Center for Victims of 

Crime; 

Whereas Miss Harold is National Spokesperson for Fight 

Crime: Invest in Kids; 

Whereas Miss Harold is a member of the National Advisory 

Board for Peace Games, the National Board of Directors 

for the Center of Youth as Resources, and the Advisory 

Council for the Empower Program; 

Whereas Miss Harold’s achievements, leadership, and future 

goals bring an immense sense of pride to the residents 

of Urbana, Illinois, and to the University of Illinois community; and 

Whereas Miss Harold’s strong will and loving spirit will motivate her as she pursues her goal of ending youth violence: 

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates Erika Harold on being 

3 crowned Miss America 2003; 

4 (2) honors her for her vision, determination, 

5 and integrity; and 

6 (3) recognizes her as a strong positive role 

7 model for youth.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cervando RICO-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-50060

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District Of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Evers Jason Leach, Law Office of E. Jason Leach, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Cervando Rico-Luna 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), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rico-Luna has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with *317counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.
#### PERKINS v. UNITED TRANSP. CO. et al.

Civ. No. 4330.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

April 8, 1953.

' Arno R. Vogt, Washton & Vogt, New London, Conn., for plaintiff.

Philip R. Shiff, New Haven, Conn., for defendants.

SMITH, District Judge.

In this motor vehicle negligence case defendants have pleaded contributory negli*153gence on the part- of plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a reply setting forth the elements of the last clear chance doctrine.

The proposed reply, while reciting all the elements of the doctrine, does not set forth any factual situation from which the Court could determine whether the doctrine is applicable. Plaintiff contends that a similar motion was granted in Card v. McLean Trucking Company.1 I do not have the Card file before me at this time. As I recall the facts of the case, however, there was evidence produced on trial that the defendant’s driver saw the plaintiff’s car stalled in the roadway, under circumstances which required a charge on the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine.

The case at bar appears to be an ordinary intersection collision situation, with both vehicles in motion up to the time of impact. It is at least doubtful, therefore, whether any basis will appear for the application of the doctrine. Under the circumstances, the preferable course appears to be to deny the plaintiff permission to file the proposed reply without prejudice to her right to amend her pleadings on trial to conform to the proof, if evidence is produced at trial on which the Court could base a charge on the doctrine of last clear chance, and without prejudice to her right to request such a charge.

The motion for leave to file a reply is denied.

1

. No opinion for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6965

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Richard C. Erwin, Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-153-G, CA-95-575-2)

Submitted: January 13, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tracy Demont Humphries, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Humphries, Nos. CR-91-153-G; CA-95-575-2 (M.D.N.C.

June 5, 1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568

(U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
S07A0017.

#### PIPKIN et al. v. BOGGS et al.

(644 SE2d 861)

SEARS, Chief Justice.

This appeal involves an interlocutory injunction issued in a dispute over a land development contract. On February 9, 2006, Timothy B. Boggs filed suit against F.W. Pipkin, Sr. and others in the *21Long County Superior Court, asserting breach of contract and related claims. According to Mr. Boggs, Mr. Pipkin reneged on a written contract granting Mr. Boggs the exclusive right to develop 55 lots of Mr. Pipkin’s property. The complaint requested money damages, specific performance, and interlocutory and permanent injunctive relief barring Mr. Pipkin from allowing anyone else to develop the 55 lots in question. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a July 21, 2006 order granting Mr. Boggs’s request for an interlocutory injunction. Mr. Pipkin and another defendant appealed.

Decided May 14, 2007.

*Killian & Boyd, Robert P. Killian,*for appellants.

*Arnold, Stafford, Randolph & Schaefer, Jeffery L. Arnold, H. Craig Stafford, Tyler L. Randolph,*for appellees.

1. Appellants contend the trial court erred by making final findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order granting the interlocutory injunction. This argument is meritless. Findings of fact and conclusions of law made in connection with the grant or denial of an interlocutory injunction are, by definition, preliminary in nature and subject to change based on the evidence and argument presented at later stages of the proceedings. Moreover, not only do findings of fact and conclusions of law “facilitate appellate review and promote just and speedy resolution of appeals,”1 they are affirmatively required in connection with a ruling granting or denying an interlocutory injunction when requested by a party.2 Far from constituting reversible error, this Court greatly appreciates the trial court’s voluntary inclusion of written findings of fact and conclusions of law in its July 21, 2006 order. Accordingly, we reject appellants’ claim of error.

2. We have examined Mr. Pipkin’s remaining enumerations of error, including his contention that the trial court erred in finding Mr. Boggs would suffer irreparable harm if the interlocutory injunction were denied. We find them all to be without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

*In re Marr,*194 SW3d 490, 496 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).

2

 OCGA § 9-11-52 (a) (“In ruling on interlocutory injunctions . . . , the court shall upon request of any party made prior to such ruling, find the facts specially and shall state separately its conclusions of law”).
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 Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 111 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         March 4, 2003.
Whereas on February 27, 2003, neighborhoods across the Nation were saddened by 
        the death of Fred McFeely Rogers, creator and star of ``Mister Rogers' 
        Neighborhood'';
Whereas Mr. Rogers was born in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in 1928, and moved to 
        Pittsburgh in 1953, where he pursued his education at the University of 
        Pittsburgh while attending Pittsburgh Theological Seminary;
Whereas in 1963, Mr. Rogers was ordained as a Presbyterian minister;
Whereas his landmark show ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'' inspired, taught, and 
        encouraged children, families, and adults since its first nationwide 
        broadcast on February 19, 1968, with messages of love, peace, and 
        comfort;
Whereas Mr. Rogers created over 200 of his own songs for his show, which always 
        began in a comfortable family living room as he changed into his 
        trademark cardigan sweater and sneakers, to encourage the healthy 
        emotional growth of children and their families through imagination and 
        friendship;
Whereas Mr. Rogers encouraged millions of children across the world to love 
        themselves and their neighbors and to deal with complex emotional issues 
        in a safe, reassuring way;
Whereas on July 9, 2002, in recognition of the contributions of Mr. Rogers, 
        President George W. Bush presented him with the Presidential Medal of 
        Freedom at a White House ceremony and said, ``Fred Rogers has proven 
        that television can soothe the soul and nurture the spirit and teach the 
        very young'';
Whereas the final show of ``Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'' aired in August 2001, 
        after having completed 33 television seasons and nearly 1,000 episodes;
Whereas Mr. Rogers received many awards and honors for his efforts, including 
        lifetime achievement awards from the Daytime Emmys and the Television 
        Critics Association, designation as one of the ``50 greatest TV stars of 
        all time'' by TV Guide, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1998, 
        and induction into the Television Hall of Fame in 1999; and
Whereas Mr. Rogers always remained humble and true to his philosophy, saying ``I 
        have really never considered myself a TV star. . . . I always thought I 
        was a neighbor who just came in for a visit'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors Fred Rogers for his legendary service to the improvement 
        of the lives of children, his steadfast commitment to demonstrating the 
        power of compassion, and his dedication to spreading kindness through 
        example; and
            (2) expresses condolences and sympathies to his wife Joanne, his two 
        sons, and his two grandsons.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
----

----

----

| (a)   | The Loan Documents, as such term is defined in the Loan Agreement, as such Loan Documents are modified hereby, are in full force and effect, and neither the Borrower nor either Guarantor has any defense, counterclaim or offset to the Loan or any of the Loan Documents, as modified hereby; |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | The representations and warranties of the Borrower and the Guarantors set forth in the Loan Documents are true and correct in all material respects as of the date hereof and are hereby reaffirmed as if such representations and warranties had been made on the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect; and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (c)   | This Agreement and the Loan Documents constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Borrower and the Guarantors, enforceable against the Borrower  and the Guarantors in accordance with the terms hereof and thereof. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

|   | By: | Stratus Block 21 Investments GP, L.L.C., |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------|

|   | By: | Canyon-Johnson Urban Fund II, L.P., |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------|

----

----

----

----
Exhibit 10.23

Compensation of Named Executive Officers of Curis, Inc.

As of March 2, 2007, following are the
base salaries, on an annual basis, of the named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Curis, Inc.:



|                                                               |  |   |        
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | -------
|Daniel R. Passeri                                              |  | $ | 300,000
|President and Chief Executive Officer                          |  |   |        
|                                                               | 
|Michael P. Gray                                                |  | $ | 285,000
|Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer            |  |   |        
|                                                               | 
|Mark W. Noel                                                   |  | $ | 200,000
|Vice President, Technology Management and Business Development |  |   |        
|                                                               | 
|Mary Elizabeth Potthoff                                        |  | $ | 200,000
|Vice President, General Counsel                                |  |   |        

In addition, each of the named executive officers listed above is eligible to receive stock
options and stock awards under the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of Curis, Inc.
```
<DOCUMENT>
<TYPE>EX-32.1
<SEQUENCE>4
<FILENAME>hybridexhbit321-123003.txt
<DESCRIPTION>CERTIFICATION OF CEO PER SECTION 906
<TEXT>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                 Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350

      The undersigned hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A
for the period ended December 31, 2003 of Hybrid Fuel Systems, Inc.(the "Company")
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained
in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                            s/s MARK CLANCY
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                 Mark Clancy
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 November 29, 2004

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

</TEXT>
</DOCUMENT>
```