alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeff Lupinacci, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2013 of Iconix Brand Group, Inc.;

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, 2014                                               
|                                                                   
|/s/ Jeff Lupinacci                                                 
|Jeff Lupinacci
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adelina NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50590

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 14, 2008.

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

David Glenn Rogers, Fivecoat & Rogers, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Adelina Nunez appeals her guilty-plea conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute of 500 grams or more of cocaine. Nunez argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress. She did not, however, preserve her right to appeal this adverse ruling by entering a conditional guilty plea. *See United States v. Stevens,*487 F.3d 232, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. *denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 336, 169 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007); Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2); *cf. United States v. Santiago,*410 F.3d 193, 197-98 (5th Cir.2005).

Nunez asserts that the district court erred by denying her relief under the safety valve. Under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(5), Nunez must establish that she “truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct.” Nunez cannot establish that the district court clearly erred in determining that she failed to meet this requirement. *See United States v. Treft,*447 F.3d 421, 426-27 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 555, 166 L.Ed.2d 413 (2006).

Nunez also maintains that the district court erred in denying her a four-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for her minimal role in the offense. Nunez *740did receive a two-level reduction for a minor role. Nunez cannot establish that she is entitled to relief on this ground; even if the district court erred in denying the motion, the record establishes that the district court would have imposed the same sentence. *See United States v. Rogers,*126 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir.1997); *United States v. Tello,*9 F.3d 1119, 1131 (5th Cir.1993). Nunez’s conviction and sentence are thus AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Tibbals *v.*Daby.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 6, 1880.)

Patents — Inpbingement—Deceee.

Where one claim of a patent was infri nged and the others were not, the usual decree will be entered.

*A. v. Briesen,*for plaintiff.

*G. H. Yeoman,*for defendant.

Blatchford, C. J.

I am of opinion that it is shown that the defendant has infringed claim 1 of patent No. 79,534, and that nothing is proved sufficient to show that said claim is invalid. I am also of opinion that the defendant’s arrangement does not infringe claim 4, or *5,*or 6 of patent No. 101,295, or any other claim of that patent. The usual decree will be entered for the plaintiff on claim 1 of patent No. 79,534, with costs.
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with TiGenix’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange
Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Claudia D’Augusta, Chief Financial
Officer of TiGenix, certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TiGenix.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 6, 2017



|/s/ Claudia D’Augusta   | 
|----------------------- | 
|Name: Claudia D’Augusta | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Baby Boy Strother v. DeVocht

February 23, 1984

Case No. (Law) 8645

By JUDGE WILEY R. WRIGHT, JR.

The defendant has demurred to the motion for judgment on two grounds.

1. This wrongful death action was not instituted in the name of the personal representative of the decedent as required by Code Section 8.01-50(B); and

2. Virginia does not recognize a cause of action for the wrongful death of a stillborn child.

The plaintiff has conceded that this action should have been instituted in the name of the personal representative of the decedent, and this oversight may be cured by an appropriate amendment.

I have considered the authorities cited by counsel and have reached the conclusion that, regardless of contrary decisions in other jurisdictions, my ruling on the second ground is governed by *Lawrence*v. *Craven Tire Co.,*210 Va. 138, 169 S.E.2d 440 (1969), in which the Virginia Supreme Court held that the Virginia Wrongful Death Act does not provide an action for the wrongful death of a stillborn child.

Inasmuch as the second defect in the motion for judgment is not susceptible of cure by amendment, the demurrer will be sustained and the motion for judgment will be dismissed.
Exhibit 10.45





Exhibit 10.45




	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Corporate Headquarters

7 Commerce Drive 

Danbury, Connecticut 06810
	 	800.766.2681 Telephone

512.794.1100 Direct

512.792.8040 Facsimile

www.atmi.com






October 27, 2010




BY CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



M&M Realty

Commerce Park

P.O. Box 581

7 Finance Drive

Danbury, CT 06810





			
	c/o:	 	Mel Powers on behalf of Seymour R. Powers, Carole Kolsky, Deborah A. Tauber and Stephen L.
Griss (together, the “Lessor”) regarding the Lease for 6 Commerce Drive, Danbury, CT 06810
between Lessor and Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. (the “Lessee”)







			
	References:	 	The Agreement of Lease between Lessor and Lessee dated as of November 24,
2000, together with Amendment to Lease dated as of March 24, 2003, Second Amendment to
Lease dated as of January 18, 2007, and Third Amendment to Lease dated as of October 30,
2008 (collectively referred to herein as the “Lease”); and






Subject: Notice to Lessor of Lessee’s exercise of the First Renewal Term




Dear Mr. Powers:



In accordance with the terms of the Lease, this document serves as notice of Lessee’s exercise of
the First Renewal Term for the period effective January 1, 2012 until December 31, 2016.



Additionally, Lessor agrees to perform the following improvements on or before February 2011:




	 	1.	 	Repair and repave the parking lots with 1.5” asphalt and re-stripe the same
according to a striping plan to be mutually agreed by Lessor and Lessee prior to the work
being performed; and







	 	2.	 	Reseal the roof of the building with silver reflective coating, according to its
commercial specifications (collectively, the “Lessor Improvements”).






Please confirm your agreement with respect to the Lessor Improvements by signing below.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sincerely,	 	Lessor:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Paul Hohlstein 

	 	By:	 	/s/ Mel Powers 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Paul Hohlstein

	 	 	 	Mel Powers
	 	 	 	 
	Sr. Vice President
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Supply Chain and Operations

	 	 	 	Title:	 	Managing Agent 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 




 


1 of   2 









 






	 	 	 
	cc:

	 	Mr. Tim Carlson — Chief Financial Officer, ATMI

Michael, G. Proctor, Esq.

c/o Pullman & Comley

850 Main Street

P.O. Box 7006

Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006





 


2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1

                               PURCHASE ORDER FORM
                            (Subscription Agreement)

Almah, Inc.

Dear Sirs:

     The undersigned (the "Purchaser") acknowledge that I have received and
reviewed the Prospectus of Almah, Inc., dated__________ 2012.

     Concurrent with execution of this Agreement, the Purchaser is purchasing
_______________________________________________ (__________) shares of Common
Stock of Almah, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company") at a price of $0.01
per Share (the "Subscription Price"). Purchaser hereby confirms the subscription
for and purchase of said number of shares and hereby agrees to pay herewith the
Subscription Price for such Shares.

     Purchaser further confirms that _________________________________ solicited
him/her/it to purchase the shares of Common Stock of the Company and no other
person participated in such solicitation other than such person(s).

MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: Almah, Inc.

     Executed this _____ day of ___________________, 2012.


------------------------------------          ----------------------------------
                                              Signature of Purchaser

------------------------------------
Address of Purchaser

------------------------------------
Printed Name of Purchaser

                      PLEASE ENSURE FUNDS ARE IN US DOLLARS

__________________________  X  $______ = ___________ = US$ ____________________
Number of Shares Purchased                             Total Subscription Price


Form of Payment: Cash: _____  Check #: ______________  Other: _______________

Almah, Inc.


By:                                      Title:
    ------------------------------------        --------------------------------
#### Freddie HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer BOUVIA and Mark Mogavero, Defendants-Appellees, Superintendent Poole, Program Committee, and Officer Gresler, Defendants.

No. 06-5410-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 17, 2008.

Freddie Harris, Gouverneur, New York, Pro se, for Appellant.

Owen Demuth, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara Underwood, Solicitor General, and Patrick Barnett-Mulligan, Assistant Solicitor General, of counsel), for Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellees.

PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, DAVID G. TRAGER, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Freddie Harris, appearing pro se, appeals from the November 15, 2006 decision and order of the *950United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Scott, *M.J.)*granting defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment, denying his motion for summary judgment, denying all outstanding trial motions as moot, and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants.2

This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and arises from an altercation in 2003 between Harris and another inmate while both were incarcerated at the Five Points Correctional Facility in Romulus, New York. Videotape evidence of the altercation demonstrates that it lasted less than two minutes and that neither of the participants suffered any significant injury. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case, and with the issues raised on appeal.

“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, utilizing the same standard as the district court.” *Ollman v. Special Bd. of Adjustment No. 1063,*527 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record demonstrates “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court appropriately granted the defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment.3

For the reasons stated above, the decision and order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

2

. The claims against Defendants Superintendent Poole, Program Committee, and Officer Gresler were dismissed by a prior order of the district court, dated July 1, 2005. That decision was not appealed.

3

. Plaintiff-appellant’s “Motion for Appeal” is accordingly denied as moot.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Peter VAILLANCOURT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6106.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 24, 2008.

Jeffrey Peter Vaillaneourt, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Peter Vaillaneourt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic*234tion because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

We are obligated to review our jurisdiction sua sponte in all cases. *See Maksymchuk v. Frank,*987 F.2d 1072, 1075 (4th Cir.1993). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed.R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 18, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on December 11, 2007. Because Vaillancourt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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.*
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Russell et al. v. Ellis

February 21, 1984

Case No. (Chancery) 34697

By JUDGE WILLIAM L. WINSTON

The question presented in this case is whether a deed created a tenancy in common between the grantees or a joint tenancy with the full common law right of survivorship between them.

The defendant and Cecil Campbell purchased property in Arlington County in 1973. Cecil Campbell was separated from his wife, one of the plaintiffs, but not divorced. Sometime after taking title to the property and after the recordation of the deed, he obtained a divorce and married the defendant. He later died giving rise to this litigation between his first family and his widow.

The deed purported to create an estate by the entireties. Naturally that estate was not created because the grantees were not married at the time of the conveyance. The deed referred to the grantees as "Cecil Campbell and June E. Campbell, his wife." The granting clause of the instrument included this language:

> . . . as tenants by the entirety with the full common law right of survivorship, it *160being intended that the part of the first one dying shall then belong to the survivor.

The plaintiffs claim that a tenancy in common was created; the defendant, a joint tenancy. The tenancy by the entirety is a form of joint tenancy as modified by the common law principle of the unity of husband and wife. Minor, *The Law of Real Property,*Second Edition, Section 853.

The language used in the deed created a joint tenancy. The question then is the effect, if any, of Section 55-20, Code of Virginia, which abolishes survivorship between joint tenants and Section 55-21, Code of Virginia, which removes from the effect of the former section, an estate conveyed "when it manifestly appears from the tenor of the instrument that it was intended the part of the one dying should then belong to the others."

The language used in this conveyance is that used to create a joint tenancy, and for that reason the survivorship is saved by Section 55-21 of the Code of Virginia.

Counsel for the defendant should prepare an order consistent with the foregoing incorporating therein by reference this memorandum. It should be endorsed by counsel, noting exceptions. The order should contain a legal description of the property, and should vest title in the survivor so that anyone examining this title in the future will see that this question has been adjudicated.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of First Keystone Financial, Inc.
(the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.


                                    /s/ Rose M. DiMarco
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Rose M. DiMarco
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 28, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to First Keystone Financial, Inc. and will
be retained by First Keystone Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40869 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ARTHUR TYRONE BALTHAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas (1:96-CR-3-2) March 25, 1997

Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Arthur Tyrone Balthazar appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Having reviewed the2

arguments amd the record, we find no clear error. We affirm. The district court did not clearly err in refusing Balthazars’s request for an offense level reduction for being a “minor” or “minimal” participant. See U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES
M ANUAL § 3B1.2; United States v. Atanda , 60 F.3d 196, 198-99 (5th Cir. 1995). The court also properly applied the “career offender” guideline to Balthazar because he had two prior felony convictions that fell within that guideline. See U.S. S ENTENCING G UIDELINES M ANUAL § 4B1.1; 4A1.2 (1996); United States v. Garcia , 962 F.2d 479, 482 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                                           STATE/JURISDICTION           NAME(S) UNDER WHICH CONDUCTING BUSINESS 
----------                                           ------------------           ---------------------------------------

<S>                                                  <C>                        <C>
WorldPort Communications, Inc.                       Delaware                   WorldPort Communications, Inc.
                                                                                WorldPort Communications
                                                                                WorldPort

Telenational Communications, Inc.                    Delaware                   Telenational Communications, Inc.
                                                                                TCI, TNC, Telenational

WorldPort/ICX, Inc.                                  Delaware                   Intercontinental Exchange
                                                                                ICX

International Interconnect, Inc.                     Delaware                   International Interconnect, Inc.
                                                                                WorldPort IIC, IIC

WorldPort International, Inc.                        Delaware                   N/A

WorldPort Acquisitions, Inc.                         Delaware                   N/A

WorldPort Acquisitions, Corp.                        Delaware                   N/A

WorldPort Communications Europe Holding BV           Netherlands                N/A

WorldPort Distributions NV                           Netherlands                N/A

WorldPort Communications (Europe) BV                 Netherlands                N/A

EnerTel NV                                           Netherlands                EnerTel NV
                                                                                EnerTel
                                                                                WorldPort EnerTel

WorldPort Ltd                                        United Kingdom             WorldPort Ltd
</TABLE>