alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.22



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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I John W. Hlywak, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
     certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. /s/ 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 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/John W. Hlywak, Jr.
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         John W. Hlywak, Jr.
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         November 13, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR
ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000200243
<NAME>                        ARTRA GROUP INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                         11,753
<SECURITIES>                                    8,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,268
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,455
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           2,857
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        6,227
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,271)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,268
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 38,930
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   33,223 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    4.16 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    4.16 
        


</TABLE>
| 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   | By:                             |  /s/ Jay Higham |
|   |   |        |       Jay Higham      President and Chief Executive Officer       May 6, 2011 |
#### Eric CASTANEIRA, Appellant, v. Ed LIGTENBERG, Executive Director of the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles; South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles; Robert D. Hofer; Jerry Lammers; Dennis Kaemingk; Ted J. Pins, Jr.; Cheryl Laurenz-Bogue; Thomas Cihak; Mark Marshall, in their individual capacities as members of the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles, Appellees.

No. 06-4059.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 4, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 5, 2008.

Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Eric Castaneira appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

We agree with appellees that the only matter before us is the ruling on Castaneira’s postjudgment motion, which this court reviews for clear abuse of discretion. *See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of Black Hills,*141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998). The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to correct manifest errors of fact or law or to offer newly discovered evidence, but not to introduce new evidence or legal theories, or to make arguments which could have been made before entry of judgment. *See id.*In seeking Rule 59(e) relief, Castaneira merely presented an argument that he could have raised in his counseled summary judgment resistance, and he asserted that discovery should have occurred before summary judgment was granted, although his counsel had not sought a continuance under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), see *Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc.,*180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir.1999) (party opposing sum*727mary judgment who believes he has not had adequate time for discovery must seek relief under Rule 56(f), which requires filing affidavit with trial court specifying facts further discovery might reveal). We thus find no basis for overturning the Rule 59(e) order.

Accordingly we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Castaneira’s motion to file his reply brief out of time.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence J. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Order filed January 8, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00932

- CV

____________ JASON DEYO , Appellant

V. JEFFREY R. GILBERT, P.C., ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 97337

- CV



### ORDER
Court reporter Renee Rape filed a partial reporter’s record comprising two volumes. Court reporter Terri Sanchez informed this court that appellant has not requested her portion of the reporter’s record. On December 7, 2018 , the clerk o f this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appella nt, within 15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of the request for the reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). No response has been received.2

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal by February 7,
2019

. If appel lant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties at the Melbourne 
International Airport, Melbourne, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain 
airport properties 15.5 acres at the Melbourne International Airport, 
Melbourne, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as 
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of 
Melbourne, dated April 20, 1948. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's 
request are available, by appointment only, for inspection at the 
Melbourne International Airport and the FAA Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Melbourne 
International Airport, One Air Terminal Parkway, Suite 220, Melbourne, 
FL 32901 and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 
Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's 
request must be delivered or mailed to: Stephen Wilson, Program 
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 
Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.
    In addition, a copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Mark Busalacchi, Director of Business 
Development, Melbourne International Airport, One Air Terminal Parkway, 
Suite 220, Melbourne, FL 32901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Wilson, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The release of property will allow the City 
of Melbourne to dispose of the property for commercial use. The City of 
Melbourne requests the release of a 15.5 acre tract located in a 
commercial district along Apollo Boulevard in Melbourne, Florida. The 
parcel is currently designated commercial property. The property will 
be released of its federal obligations given the land is no longer 
required by The City of Melbourne. The Fair Market Value (FMV) of this 
parcel has been determined to be $2,125,000.00.
    Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform 
Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the FAA to provide an 
opportunity for public notice and comment prior to the ``waiver'' or 
``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to use certain 
airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, FL, on August 16, 2017.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region. Revision 
Date 11/22/00
[FR Doc. 2017-17756 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
March 27, 2014

 

Securities and Exchange Commission  Judiciary Plaza  450 Fifth Street NW  Washington DC 20549

 

**RE: Saturna Investment Trust, File #33-13247**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the referenced Trust and pursuant to Rule 497(j), we wish to certify that the form of the recently filed *Prospectus*and *Statement of Additional Information* for CIK #0000811860, Saturna Investment Trust, that would have been filed under Rule 497 paragraph (b) or (c) would not have differed from that contained in the most recent registration or amendment, and that the text has been filed electronically.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this filing, please contact me at (360) 594-9900 Ext. 303.

 

              Yours truly, */s/ Ethel Bartolome*              Ethel Bartolome               Secretary              Saturna Investment Trust
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELMER STEVE FUENTES HERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-71200 

Agency No. A206-421-638 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an

Immigration Judge’s Decision

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Elmer Steve Fuentes Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions 

for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming the decision of an 

asylum officer during expedited removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for 

review.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-71200 

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s order because it was issued pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and none of the exceptions to the restriction on judicial 

review of expedited removal orders apply. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) (“no 

court shall have jurisdiction to review” determinations made under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1225(b)(1)(B)); Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 455-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding 

this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review removal orders issued pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and describing the limited exceptions).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors and Stockholder
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
Colorado Springs, Colorado

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of El Paso CGP Company, formerly
The Coastal Corporation) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial position of Colorado Interstate
Gas Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended
December 31, 2000, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Denver, Colorado
February 23, 2001
#### MATYAS v. FEDDISH.

No. 1364.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

May 12, 1945.

*386Robert J. Doran, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Conrad'A. Falvello, of Hazelton, Pa. (of Reynolds & Reynolds) of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for plaintiff.

George I. Puhak, of Hazelton, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

On April 17, 1945, this Court filed an opinion and entered final judgment after trial without a jury, dismissing the above captioned suit against the defendant, P. B. Feddish.1 On April 27,. 1945, the plaintiff filed a paper entitled “Exceptions”. It was suggested therein that, in accordance with Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the Court amend its opinion and its findings of fact and conclusions of law, a compliance with which would amount to a reversal of the judgment.

Rule 52(b), so far as pertihent, reads as follows:

> “Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly.. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59.”

The purpose of Rule 52 is to clarify matters for the appellate court’s better understanding of the basis of the decision of the trial court. Tulsa City Lines v. Mains, 10 Cir., 107 F.2d 377. The Rule permits the Court in its discretion to “amend” findings of fact or to “make additional findings”, thus amplifying and expanding the facts. The Rule does not provide for a reversal of the judgment or for a denial of the facts as found, which is what the plaintiff requests at present.

The plaintiff might have proceeded by motion for a new trial or by appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals from the judgment entered in the trial court. It is clear that Rule 52(b) does not provide for that which is sought by the plaintiff here, and plaintiff’s request will be denied.

The requests made by plaintiff, Stephen Matyas, Trustee in Bankruptcy, and filed April 27, 1945, are hereby denied.

1

 No opinion for publication.
No. 1016.

No. 1017.

#### Hash *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and Hash *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

May 27, 1946.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I,
Robert S. Vaters, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Inamed Corporation (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



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

|Dated: March 28, 2003                                                                                                 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                                                      |  | 
|/s/ROBERT S.VATERSRobert S.Vaters,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 

---

QuickLinks
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

EVERTON HINDS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3586 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 25, 2017.
A ppeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Ramiro Manalich, Judge. Everton Hinds, pro se.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to any right Hinds might have to fil e a timely and sufficient petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

                                     BETWEEN

                            INTEGRAMED AMERICA, INC.

                                       AND

                          MPD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.



         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 ("Amendment  No.1") dated as of October 1, 2000 to
the  Management  Agreement  dated as of July 1, 1999 by and  between  IntegraMed
America,  Inc., a Delaware corporation,  with its principal place of business at
One Manhattanville Road, Purchase, New York 10577 ("Management Company") and MPD
Medical Associates,  P.C., a New York professional services corporation with its
principal  place of business at 200 Old Country  Road,  Mineola,  New York 11501
("PC").

                                    RECITALS:

         Management Company and PC entered into a Management  Agreement dated as
of July 1, 1999 (the "Management Agreement").

         Management  Company has fully performed the services provided for under
the Management Agreement.

         In recognition of the additional  services and capital  provided to PC,
the parties have agreed to increase the Monthly  Management Fee, as such term is
defined in the Management Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE,  in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained and other good and valuable  consideration,  Management Company
and PC agree as follows:

         1.       Section  6.4 and its  subparts  are  hereby  deleted  in their
entirety and the following is hereby substituted therefor:

         "6.4 PC shall pay  Management  Company a Monthly  Management Fee in the
amount of Sixty  Thousand  Dollars  ($60,000.00)  for the period October 1, 2000
through and  inclusive of September  30, 2001.  Prior to October 1, 2001, PC and
Management  Company shall, in good faith negotiate a Monthly  Management Fee for
the period  commencing  October 1, 2001. In the event Management  Company and PC
are unable to negotiate  successfully  a Monthly  Management  Fee for the period
commencing  October 1, 2001,  then the Monthly  Management  Fee of $60,000 shall
remain  in effect  until  such time as a new  Monthly  Management  Fee is agreed
upon."

         2.       This  Amendment  is  made  pursuant  to  Section  12.5  of the
Management Agreement.

         3.       All other provisions of the Management Agreement,  as amended,
not in conflict with this Amendment No. 1 remain in full force and effect.




<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties have signed this  Amendment No. 1 the
date first above written.


INTEGRAMED AMERICA, INC.



By:/s/Gerardo Canet
   ------------------------------
   Gerardo Canet, President & CEO




MPD MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C.



By:/s/Gabriel San Roman
   ----------------------------------
   Gabriel San Roman, M.D., President