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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rex T. Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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/ Rex T. Clevenger   
|Rex T. Clevenger       
|Senior Vice President &
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2006
ex10_13.htm









Exhibit 10.13







Summary of Fiscal 2012 Named Executive Officer Compensation







Set forth below is a summary of fiscal 2012 compensation arrangements between Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) and certain of its executive officers who are expected to constitute the Company’s “named executive officers” (defined in Regulation S-K Item 402(a)(3)) for fiscal 2012.  All of the Company’s executive officers are at-will employees whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors, subject only to the terms of the Management Change in Control Agreements between the Company and these executive officers (the forms of which have been filed or incorporated by reference as exhibits to the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K).







Base Salary







Effective November 1, 2011, the following executive officers are scheduled to receive the following annual base salaries in their current positions:


 



	Name and Current Position  	 	Base Salary	 
	 	 	 	 
	Richard W. Kramp 	 	$	402,132	 
	(President and Chief Executive Officer)	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Brett A. Reynolds	 	$	231,980	 
	(Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer)	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Michael K. Campbell	 	$	231,880	 
	(President of Synovis Micro Companies Alliance, Inc.)	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Mary L. Frick 	 	$	208,365	 
	(Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Clinical Affairs and Quality)	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Timothy M. Floeder 	 	$	205,066	 
	(Vice President of Corporate Development)	 	 	 	 





 


Annual Cash Incentive Compensation







For fiscal 2012, the Company’s named executive officers are eligible to receive annual cash incentive compensation up to 5% of their base salary based upon the Company’s achievement of its budgeted quarterly revenue, operating income and gross margin percent.  Additionally for fiscal 2012, the Company’s named executive officers are eligible to receive annual cash incentive compensation ranging from 20% to 35% of their base salary based upon achievement of the Company’s annual financial performance goals.  Additional cash incentive compensation may be awarded at the discretion of the Compensation Committee for performance or achievement above individual goals.







Benefits







The Company provides medical, dental, life, and disability insurance benefits as well as a 401(k) retirement plan and a stock purchase plan to its executive officers.  The same benefits are available to all Company employees.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Lee NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7198.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 7, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Christopher Lee Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick Auld, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
# Un ited S tates C ourt of A ppea ls For the Seventh Ci rcui

t Chicago, Illinois 60604 Jul y 30, 2001 Be fore Hon. K ENNETH F . RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHA

EL S. K AN NE, Circuit Judge Hon. TER

ENCE T. EV

AN S, Circuit Judge
No. 00-3640 UNI TE D S TAT ES OF AME RIC A,

Plaintiff- Appellant , v. ROB ER TO PALO MIN O- RIV ER A,

Defendant-Appellee
. Appeal from the Uni ted St ates District Court for the Northern Dis trict District of I lli nois, Ea st er n Division. No. 00 CR 371 Suza nn e B. C onl on, Judge
.

O R D E R The o pin io n o f t his c o ur t iss ue d o n Ju ly 20 , 20 01 , is a men de d a s fo llo ws : A t slip o pi ni on page 9, li ne 11, delete the word “aggravated.” At slip op inion page 10, li ne 1, add t he wo rd s “and at least one ot her felony” befo re t he
comm a. The f irst l in e on page 10 shoul

d now read: “h ad been convi cted of at least one agg ra vat ed felo ny and at l east one other f

elony, i t . . . .”
EXHIBIT 31.2

            CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                     RULES 13A - 14 AND 15D - 14 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sherry A. Sturman, the Chief Financial Officer of OrthoLogic Corp., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OrthoLogic Corp.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: July 25, 2003

/s/ Sherry A. Sturman
----------------------------------
Sherry A. Sturman
Chief Financial Officer
# Patent

## Title
Dichroic dye and liquid crystalline composition for color display

## Abstract

In the battery of tests in this second evaluation Lime #1 was from 1.4 to 2.5 times more reactive than Lime #3. A review of the plots of relative occurrences of pores as a function of pore diameter for these two lime samples provided evidence that in Lime #1 nearly all the measured BET surface area was in pores between 5 and 0.2 micrometers in diameter. In contrast, only 53% of the total measured BET surface area in Lime #3 was within that range of diameter. It should be noted that while this evaluation did not attempt to determine pore distribution with exactitude, it is still significant that a relatively narrow distribution appears responsible for the overall higher reactivity of Lime #1. ______________________________________ Sulfur Capture Lime #1 Exposure Lime #3           mg SO.sub.3 (Seconds) mg SO.sub.3 % sample  100 mg % sample at 845.degree. C. 100 mg sample consumed  sample consumed ______________________________________ 16      5.90        4.13      11.0   7.71 30      8.86        6.21      15.3   10.7 60      13.3        9.3       28.7   20.1 100     14.5        10.2      50.3   35.2 900     44.9        31.4      109.0  76.5 ______________________________________

## Background
## Claims

1. A reactant for flue gas desulfurization comprising calcium oxide particles of bulk density less than 1 gram per cc, total pore volume of at least about 0.4 cubic centimeters per gram, total pore area of at least 1 square meter per gram, median pore diameter by surface area of less than 2 micrometers, median pore diameter by pore volume of at least 0.8 micrometers and apparent skeletal density of at least about 2.7.

2. The reactant of claim 1 in which the calcium oxide particles comprise flash calcined marine origin aragonite sand particles.

3. The reactant of claim 1 in which at least about half of the pore volume resides in pores ranging from about 0.2 micrometers to about 20 micrometers in diameter.

4. The reactant of claim 1 in which at least about half of the surface area is provided by pores of about 2 micrometers to about 0.4 micrometers in diameters.

5. The reactant of claim 1 having a total pore volume to weight ratio of about 0.7-0.9 cubic centimeters per gram.

6. The reactant of claim 1 in which the total surface area is at least 2 square meters per gram.

7. The reactant of claim 1 having a total surface area to weight ratio of about 0.9-4 square meters per gram.

8. A reactant for flue gas desulfurization comprising porous calcium oxide particles of highly voided skeletal structure of bulk density less than 1 gram per cubic centimeter and such that the particles have a total pore volume to weight ratio of about 0.7-0.9 cubic centimeters per gram, total surface area of at least 2 square meters per gram, median pore diameter by surface area of less than 2 micrometers, median pore diameter by pore volume greater than 0.8 micrometers, and in which at least about half of the pore volume resides in pores ranging from about 0.2 micrometers to about 20 micrometers in diameter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         739,709
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,942,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                   301,019
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,909,406
<PP&E>                                         2,056,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                 900,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,999,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,270,278
<BONDS>                                        9,260,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    3,557
<COMMON>                                       11,715
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,453,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,999,509
<SALES>                                        882,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,609,890
<CGS>                                          682,920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,039,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               724,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120,902
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             235,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (242,113)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (242,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (242,113)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Susan Baba, Appellant, v Martin Evans et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 7, 2008;

decided February 12, 2008

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*9 NY3d 970 (2007)].
JOSVMR^ 

## ££i±^t^^Jlcu$j= UAMS- : l4uUA*Le .v. STATS-of-ia<A*> AERelLats ~-Cgu$£- l^MHBM-l?i^^0J-^±^^OJ-0-iS^C^ 

### jL lo.mSk&iA - IT MAY^ C&.N.ce_BJsL 

# S-o pl£j^£ HeL_P—M£ T-o B,£ASx XL My. /u>am£> is }jijisi&- Le ,. X£xx# a±^££>2>zq 

# -espouse *qaj v~>t-ir H^ <LlsT&r Maijam js?f Tine S^ $k^ C*+/ AssisT HE C^FFfJIo^^t] 

# /4lVp MA\L&*L. L&S—MoTintf izJ^PE-NfSDjz Ajlp Ttfey pil.dL Mf? rR t /U£££ co>)c for ax£aLirfoa/AL , TiMB



# -r-r M«sT S£ piLe /W, M€ Ct\?eaLLo+Jr\ (Met-?- H£)
— ,- #juq£6tea 

# C&ufJ u-ou CLVJLS H-5 6L&- cLoj^- jz^xTSNS'JoHgE's&^_r 

### J o ^ £~ & % kp ^
*M % M H;j 3

2? 0 0 sD 

# £ I- ^ Q

•a. , UN so ^ \0

V.L 0 y 3 0 sj 

# £ X
0

CL

a: U. so

o
r

### V-

< < U. H o m 3"
m to 8 1 w o DrrCO _J ai < z £tf> cc £< in .a. Q<2l CT3 sj; LUU^Ifc- C\l OC£X «>• t'C r~4 X CEO- IS3 CL g CO ^ cc a: QC X ill 0 —1 iZ 0 LL3 O yj
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (23)(f)

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-76347), S-3 (No. 333-73922) and S-4 (No.
333-111220) of Consumers Energy Company of our report dated February 18, 2004
relating to the financial statements of Midland Cogeneration Venture L.P. which
appears in the Consumers Energy Company Form 10-K/A for the year ended December
31, 2003.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Detroit, Michigan
July 20, 2004
#### Ramon Cruz REYES; Ofelia Robles Diaz, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71745.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.**

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill Piibe & Ville-gas, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul F. Stone, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Ramon Cruz Reyes and his wife Ofelia Robles Diaz seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not state a colorable due process claim. *See MaHinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); *see also Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding agency’s interpretation of the hardship standard as falling *757within the broad range authorized by the statute).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### ALLIED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION v. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 54-815.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

May 11, 1956.

*182James M. Malloy, Morton Myerson, Malloy, Sullivan & Myerson, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

John L. Hall, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, Mass., Conrad W. Oberdorfer, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McCARTHY, District Judge.

The case is before the Court upon the defendant’s objections to certain interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff. These interrogatories, for the purpose of objections, fall into two classes: 1. The defendant objects to those interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff which seek information about certain acts of the defendant which might have been restraints upon trade but which were directed at competitors of the defendant other than the plaintiff. The objection here is upon the grounds of relevancy and unreasonable burden. 2. The defendant objects to certain interrogatories which seek information concerning activities of the defendant during a period of time which does not fall within the period not barred by the Statute of Limitations. The objection here is based upon relevancy and unreasonable burden.

It is the Court’s ruling that the interrogatories seek information which is relevant and do not impose an unreasonable burden upon the defendant. The interrogatories directed toward acts of the defendant which might be restraints but which acts were directed against competitors of the defendant other than the plaintiff seek information relevant to the case since notice by the defendant to a shoe manufacturer that the manufacturer could not use the machines made by a competitor other than the plaintiff is notice to that manufacturer that he cannot use machines of the same nature made by the plaintiff.

The interrogatories seeking information as to acts of the defendant before the period not barred by the Statute of Limitations seek relevant information since restrictive activities before the bar of the statute may very well be shown to have had restrictive effects during the period not barred. *183Also, the patents and leases invoiced before the bar of the statute persumably ran into the period not barred and any restrictive effects resulting from the invocation would continue to endure during the life of the patent or lease.

The interrogatory numbered 5 to which the defendant objects seeks relevant information in that evidence that the defendant kept track of all of its competitors’ machines in use by shoe manufacturers, coupled with evidence that the defendant did acts tending to restrain trade as a result of the information contained in lists of machines in use by manufacturers, would be admissible in the plaintiff’s case.
Exhibit 11.1

	Computation of fully-diluted earnings per share, using 21,921,256 weighted 
average shares outstanding.

                                              							Amount		        Per Share
Net income					                                     	$  8,438,000	    	$  .38

Calculation of number of weighted average
   fully-diluted shares:
Proceeds from assumed exercise of options	          	$18,184,055
Divided by quarter ended March 31, 1997
   average closing price of common stock	   	             $27.51
Equals number of shares assumed purchased
   under treasury stock method			                        660,998
Number of shares assumed purchased through
   exercise of options					                              900,000
Less number of shares assumed purchased
   under treasury stock method			                        660,998
Equals additional shares assumed outstanding
   for fully-diluted earnings per share computation	     239,002
Plus weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, primary EPS calculation            		 21,682,254
Equals weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, fully-diluted EPS calculations		      21,921,256