alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2004 (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Wesley W. Winnekins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

/s/      Wesley W. Winnekins

Wesley W. Winnekins
Chief Financial Officer
May 17, 2004
Exhibit
32.2 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 Schick Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
Rosner, Director of Finance and Administration of the Company, and its
principal financial officer, 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/ Ronald RosnerRonald RosnerDirector of Financeand Administration(Principal Financial Officer)Schick Technologies, Inc.August 9, 2005
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Botach Tactical 

Under Contract No. W911S7-10-F-0055 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60234 

Mr. Chushim Botach 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

L TC Timothy A. Furin, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

By email dated 25 September 2015, Mr. Chushim Botach filed a notice of appeal 

which the Board docketed as ASBCA No. 60234. The email indicates it was sent from 

chushim@botach.com. In response to the Board's 2 8 September 2015 Order, which directed 

Mr. Chushim Botach to show that Botach Tactical was represented in this appeal by a person 

meeting the criteria of Board Rule 15, Mr. Chushim Botach submitted a 13 October 2015 

email in which he stated: "Bar Kochba Botach is the owner of Botach Tactical. He can be 

reached at Bk@botach.com." 

Mr. Bar Kochba Botach has not filed a written notice of appearance with the Board, as is 

required by Board Rule l 5(a). The Board has received no responses from Mr. Bar Kochba 

Botach to Orders sent via email to bk@botach.com on 10 November and 4 December 2015. 

On 2 February 2016, the Board informed Messrs. Botach that ifBotach Tactical 

intended to pursue this appeal, a person meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15(a) 

should file a written notice of appearance with the Board no later than 19 February 2016. 

The Board Order was sent via email to Mr. Bar Kochba Botach at bk@botach.com and to 

Mr. Chushim Botach at chushim@botach.com, and also via USPS. No response was 

received by the Board. 

By Order dated 24 February 2016, sent to the two email addresses set forth above, 

the Board again directed Messrs. Botach to file a written notice of appearance of a 

representative meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15(a) within 14 days ofthe date of 

the Order. The Order stated that ifBotach Tactical did not comply with the Order, the 

Board intended to dismiss the appeal without further notice to the parties. The Board has 

received no response. 
Without a representative meeting the requirements of Board Rule 15, the Board is 

unable to proceed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

Dated: 15 March 2016 

I concur 

JVK 

~f~-::L __ i 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

d2? ~ efiz{- ~tMPL~ Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

J. REID PROUTY 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60234, Appeal ofBotach Tactical, 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Valentin GALICIA-GARCIA; Karla Paola Galicia-Penaloza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71555.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*954Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Valentin Galicia-Garcia, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

Karla Paola Galicia-Penaloza, Anaheim, CA, pro se.

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, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esq., Joseph A. O’Connell, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Valentin Galicia-Garcia and his daughter Karla Paola Galicia-Penaloza petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their motion to reconsider its earlier order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, *Oh v. Gonzales,*406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA concluded there was no error in its prior determination that Galicia-Garcia failed to show the requisite physical presence because he had previously signed an agreement to accept voluntary departure, understanding he would return to Mexico rather than appear before an immigration judge. However, the record does not contain the agreement, and GaliciaGarcia testified that immigration officials did not tell him he had the option to either voluntarily depart or appear before an immigration judge. *See Ibarrar-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 619 (9th Cir.2006) (“[Bjefore it may be found that a presence-breaking voluntary departure occurred, the record must contain some evidence that the alien was *informed of and accepted its terms*”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Because the BIA did not have the benefit of our decision in *Ibarra-Flores*at the time of its order, we remand the case for the agency to consider Galicia-Garcia’s application for cancellation of removal in a manner consistent with that decision.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2


   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C.
 SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                                      2002

         In connection with the filing of Zunicom,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  (the
"Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month  periods
ending  September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Julie  Sansom-Reese,  Chief  Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act
and  18  U.S.C.   (SS)  1350,  as  enacted   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 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/ Julie Sansom-Reese
----------------------
Julie Sansom-Reese
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial and accounting officer)

November 14, 2005


























                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 21
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 8

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
      Relations Board relating to representation case procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2015

  Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
Cornyn, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Burr, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
  Risch, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Coats, Mr. Scott, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kirk, Mr. 
Barrasso, Mr. Thune, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Corker, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
Cassidy, Mr. Heller, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Collins, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
Cotton, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Vitter, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hoeven, 
   Mr. Moran, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
 Cochran, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Ernst, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Cruz, 
 Mr. Lee, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Portman, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Rounds, 
  and Mr. Sasse) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
 read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
                              and Pensions

                           February 23, 2015

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
      Relations Board relating to representation case procedures.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to 
representation case procedures (published at 79 Fed. Reg. 74308 
(December 15, 2014)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                                                        Calendar No. 21

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              S. J. RES. 8

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
      Relations Board relating to representation case procedures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 23, 2015

  Committee discharged by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c), and 
                         placed on the calendar
```
#### Georg PFEIFFER, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of European & Overseas Trading Company, G.m.b.H., Plaintiff, v. Walter B. FRANK, Franex Overseas Trading Corp., and Albumina Supply Co., Inc., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 29, 1955.

Adolf Hamburger, New York City, for plaintiff, Jacob S. Chalat and Fritz Weinschenk, New York City, of counsel.

Weinshenker & Kenner, New York City, for defendants Louis J. Wein-shenker, New York City, of counsel.

HERLANDS, District Judge.

This motion by defendants is based upon both F.R.C.P. Rule 12(b) (6) and Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A. The motion, in so far as it is based upon Rule 12(b) (6), is denied upon the authority of Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 774. See Field and Kaplan, Materials for a Basic Course in Civil Procedure (1953), Note at 391-392.

That branch of defendants’ motion which is predicated upon Rule 56 is likewise denied.

 An analysis of the complaint and the motion papers submitted in behalf of both sides demonstrates that there is a triable issue of fact with respect to the existence of a memorandum sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. This genuine and bona fide issue should not be disposed of on a motion for summary judgment." Similarly, the issue involving the alleged waiver of the right to proceed by way of arbitration pursuant to the alleged contract cannot be determined summarily in advance of a trial. Plaintiff is entitled to his day in court and to the opportunity to conduct such pre-trial discovery as may be appropriate.

The fact that the opposing affidavits are not based entirely upon personal knowledge is not justification for granting summary judgment, in view of the circumstances disclosed. See opinion of Frank, Circuit Judge, in Alvado v. General Motors Corporation, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 408.

Motion denied.
Amendment to Employment Agreement, between the registrant and Sunil Bhonsle



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
dated this 30th day of December, 2011 between Titan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) and Sunil Bhonsle (“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive
are parties to an employment agreement dated May 16, 2009 (as amended by agreements dated February 17, 2010,June 15, 2010 and December 27, 2010, the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the compensation provision of the Agreement will expire by its terms on December 31, 2011 and the Company and Executive
wish to amend and extend the Agreement to provide for uninterrupted service by the Executive 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for and in
consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 

1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Amendment Agreement (the “Effective Date”) is January 1, 2012.

 2. Trigger Date. The term Trigger Date as used in the Agreement shall be changed to December 31, 2012.

 3. Stock Option Grant. Effective January 3, 2012, the Executive shall be granted 10-year, immediately exercisable
options to purchase 300,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price equal to fair market value on the date of grant, in accordance with the provisions of the Company’s 2002 Incentive Plan. 

4. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment Agreement, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first
above written. 
  

			
	TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Marc Rubin

		 	Name: Marc Rubin
		 	Title: Executive Chairman

  

					
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Sunil Bhonsle

		 	Name: Sunil Bhonsle
Exhibit 10.24


SUMMARY OF THE REGISTRANT’S
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


     Except as set forth below with
regard to the fiscal year 2011 amendment to director compensation, the Company pays each of its non-employee directors $30,000
annually or $60,000 annually to its lead director and/or Chairman. In addition, non-employee directors receive the following committee-related
fees annually: (1) $7,500 for participating on the Audit Committee or $15,000 for chairing the committee; (2) $5,000 for participating
on the Compensation Committee or $15,000 for chairing the committee; and (3) $2,500 for participating on the Nominating and Governance
Committee or $5,000 for chairing the committee.


     For the fiscal year ended September 30,
2011, the Company’s Chairman and/or lead director received, in lieu of the standard director compensation, $40,000 in cash
as compensation for serving as a director for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011 and the remaining $20,000 in the form
of restricted stock units. Additionally, each other non-employee director received $20,000 in cash as compensation for serving
as a director for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011 and the remaining $10,000 in the form of restricted stock units.
The Company granted the restricted stock units to its directors on October 1, 2010 (the “Director RSUs”) under
the Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan and the Director RSUs vested in equal installments on each of December 31, 2010,
March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2011. The number of RSUs was determined by dividing the amount the
director’s cash compensation was reduced ($20,000 or $10,000, as the case may be) by the fair value of the Company’s
closing stock price on October 2, 2010. The shares of common stock represented by the Director RSUs were distributed on September 30,
2011.


     Upon appointment, non-employee
directors receive a one-time grant of an option to purchase 25,000 shares of common stock. These options vest pro rata over one
year. Annually, non-employee directors receive an option to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock, which also vest pro rata over
one year. The exercise price of these options is the fair market value on the date of grant. Each such option expires seven years
after the date of grant under the Company’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan.


     The Company reimburses its non-employee
directors for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meetings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
        THIS AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL 
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS AMENDED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
REPLACES THE SCHEDULE FILED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILED WITH
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON JUNE 16, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,432,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,500
<INVENTORY>                                    173,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,067,717
<PP&E>                                       2,330,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,374,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          282,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,969
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,638,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,374,276
<SALES>                                        333,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               333,401
<CGS>                                          217,780
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,362,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (32,092)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,065,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,037)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,041,584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,022,355)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
exhibit44.htm


Exhibit 4.4

















INSTRUMENT OF ASSUMPTION


Air Quality Revenue Bonds


(Columbus Southern Power Company Project), Series 2007B







THIS INSTRUMENT OF ASSUMPTION, dated December 31, 2011, is entered into by OHIO POWER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation (the “Company”).







RECITALS












1.           Columbus Southern Company, an Ohio corporation (“CSP”), has heretofore entered into the Loan Agreement dated as of August 1, 2007 (the “Agreement”), by and between the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, a political subdivision, body politic and corporate duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio (the “Issuer”) and CSP, pursuant to which CSP is obligated to make certain payments related to the Air Quality Revenue Bonds (Columbus Southern Power Company Project), Series 2007B issued by the Issuer under the Indenture of Trust dated as of August 1, 2007 (as heretofore and hereafter amended or supplemented, the “Indenture”), with The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the “Trustee”).







2.           On the date hereof, CSP merged into the Company.







3.            Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 31, 2011 among the Company and CSP, and Ohio Revised Code §1701.82, the Company became responsible and liable for all the liabilities and obligations of CSP when the merger became effective and thereby unconditionally assumed the due and prompt performance of all of the obligations of CSP under the Agreement in accordance with Section 8.3(b).


 


4.           This Instrument of Assumption is being executed pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 8.3 of the Agreement.







NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KNOWN that, in consideration of the premises and of other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company DOES HEREBY ASSUME all of the obligations of CSP under the Agreement and unconditionally assumes the due and prompt performance of all of the obligations of CSP under the Agreement in accordance with Section 8.3(b).







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Instrument to be executed as of the day and year first above written.


 







OHIO POWER COMPANY







/s/ Renee V. Hawkins


By: Renee V. Hawkins


Title: Assistant Treasurer
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending April 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller and
      Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
      ss.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,





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





2)  the
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




By
              /s/
                  Antonio EstradaAntonio
                    Estrada
                  Corporate
                    Controller and
                  Principal
                    Financial Officer
                  June
                    14, 2007