alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Capstone Therapeutics Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of John M. Holliman, III, Executive Chairman and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Les M. Taeger, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 and results of operations of the Company.








Date: November 10, 2010








/s/ John M. Holliman, III


John M. Holliman, III


Executive Chairman


(Principal Executive Officer)








/s/ Les M. Taeger


Les M. Taeger


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Capstone Therapeutics  Corp. and will be retained by Capstone Therapeutics Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 OrthoLogic Corp. (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, Thomas
R. Trotter, 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 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/ Thomas R. Trotter
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 10.3






EXHIBIT 10.3 —  Schedule of Director Compensation




Compensation of Directors. Each director of the Corporation is also a director of First
Financial Bank (“FFB”), the lead subsidiary bank of the Corporation, and receives directors’ fees
from each organization. For 2009 a director of the Corporation and FFB will receive a fee of $750
for each board meeting attended.



Non-employee directors also receive a fee for meetings attended of the Audit Committee of
$1,000, the Compensation Committee of $1,000, the Governance/Nominating Committee of $500, and the
Loan Discount Committee of $300. Each director also will receive from FFB a semi-annual director’s
fee of $2,500 on July l5th and December 16th. No non-employee director served as a director of any
other subsidiary of the Corporation.



Directors of the Corporation and FFB who are not yet 70 years of age may participate in a
deferred director’s fee program at each institution. Under this program, a director may defer
$6,000 of his or her director’s fees each year over a five-year period. When the director reaches
the age of 65 or age 70, the director may elect to receive payments over a ten-year period. The
amount of the deferred fees is used to purchase an insurance product which funds these payments.
Each year from the initial date of deferral until payments begin at age 65 or 70, the Corporation
accrues a non-cash expense which will equal in the aggregate the amount of the payments to be made
to the director over the ten-year period. The Corporation expects that the cash surrender value of
the insurance policy will offset the amount of expenses accrued. If a director fails for any reason
other than death to serve as a director during the entire five-year period, or the director fails
to attend at least 60 regular or special meetings, the amount to be received at age 65 or 70, as
applicable, will be pro-rated appropriately.



Directors also may be compensated under the Corporation’s 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Under
this plan, directors may receive 90, 100 or 110 percent of the director’s “award amount” if the
Corporation and FFB attain certain goals established by the Corporation’s Compensation Committee.
See Exhibit 10.3 to this Form 10-K for a description of this plan.
Certificate of Amendment to Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company



 Exhibit 4.2 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 
 OF 

RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
 * * * * * 
 WAL-MART STORES, INC, a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 
 FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board
of Directors of WAL-MART STORES, INC. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling a meeting of the
stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows: 

RESOLVED, that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended by changing the first paragraph of article Fourth
thereof so that, as amended, said paragraph shall be and read as follows: 
 “FOURTH: The total number of shares of all
classes of stock which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is Five Billion, Six Hundred Million (5,600,000,000) shares, of which Five Billion, Five Hundred Million (5,500,000,000) shares shall be classified as Common Stock, of
the par value of 10¢ per share (herein called “Common Stock”), and of which One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shares shall be classified as Preferred Stock of the par value of 10¢ per share (herein called
“Preferred Stock”).” 
 SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors, the annual
meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute
were voted in favor of the amendment. 
 THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said WAL-MART STORES, INC. has caused this certificate to be signed by
Robert K. Rhoads, its Vice President and attested by J. Scott Melton, its Assistant Secretary, this 19th day of August, 1991. 
  

			
	By:	 	/s/ Robert K. Rhoads
		 	Robert K. Rhoads,
		 	Vice President


  

			
	ATTEST
		
	By:	 	/s/ J. Scott Melton
		 	J. Scott Melton,
		 	Assistant Secretary


  
 2
July 26, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAVIER SOLIS, JR. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 10

- 00227

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , that the appellant pay all costs expended in this

app eal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the
Report), as 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; 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/ Terence E. HallTerence E. HallChairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer
Superior Energy Services, Inc.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.0 -  Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Three Months Ended              Six Months Ended
                                                                                     June 30,                      June 30,
                                                                                2001           2000           2001         2000
                                                                            -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net Earnings                                                                $   222,178    $   202,787    $   679,636    $   630,348
 Less: Compensation expense relating to assumed conversion  of                   97,702           --           92,635           --
warrants and options, net of tax
Add:  Interest expense relating to convertible debt                                --            4,600           --            9,200
Adjusted net earnings for diluted computation                               $   124,476    $   207,387    $   587,001    $   639,548
                                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Weighted average common shares outstanding                                   12,165,250     12,139,906     12,165,250     12,130,831
Common share equivalents relating to stock options, warrants,                   546,500        402,005        535,892        402,005
and convertible debt

Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for diluted                     12,711,750     12,541,911     12,701,142     12,532,836
computation
                                                                            ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Net Earnings Per Share:
 Basic                                                                      $      0.02    $      0.02    $      0.06    $      0.05
 Diluted                                                                    $      0.01    $      0.02    $      0.05    $      0.05
</TABLE>



The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; PAR 14-166: Early Phase Clinical Trials in Imaging and Image-
Guided Interventions.
    Date: September 25, 2017.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Songtao Liu, MD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5108, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-3578, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d9aab6b7beadb8b6f7b5b0ac99b7b0b1f7beb6af"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1665797871627779387a7f6356787f7e38717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18612 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1335

YOHANNES GEBREIZBABHER HADGU, Petitioner,

versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-290-146)
Submitted: October 24, 2005 Decided: November 4, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Garfield, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Office of Immigration Litigation, Maureen T. Casey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Yohannes Gebreizbabher Hadgu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Hadgu challenges the immigration judge’s determination, adopted by the Board, that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Hadgu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief he seeks. We also uphold the denial of Hadgu’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Hadgu fails to show that he- 3 - is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Hadgu fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We conclude that Hadgu failed to make the requisite showing below. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
Report), as 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; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Robert S. TaylorRobert S. TaylorExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer


Superior Energy Services, Inc.
Aircraft mechanics and service technicians

Diagnose, adjust, repair, or overhaul aircraft engines and

assemblies, such as hydraulic and pneumatic systems.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make 

decisions, interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs. 

Cognitive and mental requirements 

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make 

decisions, interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

Table 1. Percentage of aircraft mechanics and service technicians with cognitive and mental 

requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Interaction with general public 18.7 81.3

Working around crowds <0.5 >99.5

Telework <0.5 >99.5

Work review: Supervising others 3.1 96.9

Work review: Presence of supervisor 82.2 17.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and 

experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, credentials 

necessary, on-the-job training, 

and prior work experience 

necessary for average 

performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 95.9 percent of 

aircraft mechanics and service 

technicians.

A high school diploma was 

required for 77.6 percent of 

aircraft mechanics and service 

technicians.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete hazards 

or difficulties that are in the vicinity of 

where jobs’ critical tasks are performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

aircraft mechanics and service 

technicians were not exposed to extreme 

cold, and 88.5 percent were not exposed 

to extreme heat. Wetness was not 

present for 64.7 percent, 76.7 percent 

were not exposed to heavy vibrations, 

and 29.9 percent were not exposed to 

the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities 

required to perform tasks in jobs. 

The presence and, in some cases, 

duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, reaching at or below the 

shoulder was required for 99.3 

percent of aircraft mechanics and 

service technicians and was not 

required for 0.7 percent.

Performing work in low postures 

was required for 96.2 percent of 

aircraft mechanics and service 

technicians and was not required 

for 3.8 percent.

The choice to sit or stand when performing critical tasks was available to 23.0 percent of aircraft mechanics and service 

technicians.

Table 2. Percentage of aircraft mechanics and service technicians with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 23.0 77.0

Driving 66.0 34.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7239

BRIAN JEROME SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00851-MHL)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Jerome Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Brian Jerome Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2018) petition as successive and unauthorized and he has filed a motion for a 

certificate of appealability. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or 

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has failed to 

make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Scott’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Deric S. Eubanks, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc.; and

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date: April 30, 2018 |                    |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|
|                      |                    |
|                      | /s/ DERIC S. EUBANKS    |
|                      | Deric S. Eubanks        |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Submitted March 7,

reversed May 14, 2008

#### In the Matter of A. L., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*A. L., *Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

070363210; A135542

184 P3d 1224

Liza Langford filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Michael R. Washington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman, Judge, and Ortega, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*128PER CURIAM

The trial court found that appellant has a mental disorder and, because of that mental disorder, is a danger to herself. The court entered an order of involuntary commitment on that basis. Appellant argues on appeal that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that she is a danger to herself. The state concedes the point and agrees that the order of involuntary commitment should be reversed. On *de novo*review, we agree that the evidence is insufficient to support the commitment.

Reversed.