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

** **

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Annual Report of EmclaireFinancial Corp. (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Amanda L. Engles, Principal Accounting Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Corporation. |

 
| /s/Amanda L. Engles          |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Amanda L. Engles             |
| Principal Accounting Officer |
| March 27, 2009          |

 

----
#### SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. BROWN et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 26, 1896.)

No. 258.

Rehearing denied. 21 C. C. A. 236, 75 Fed. 85.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California.

This was a suit by the Southern Pacific Railroad Company against David R. Brown and others to establish a claim to certain land. The circuit court dismissed the bill (68 Fed. 383), and the complainant appealed. This court, on June 1Í), 1806, filed an opinion affirming the decree below. 21 C. C. A. 236, 75 Fed. 85. The appellant has now moved for a rehearing.

Before McKRNYA and GILBERT, Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

HAWLEY, District Judge.

Appellant petitions this court for a. rehearing herein upon the ground “that lots 1 and *2*of the lands in suit lie west of the Reynolds survey, as is dearly and unquestionably shown by the record.” It is claimed that this fact “was inadvertently overlooked by the court in rendering its decision.” The fact that such a point was made in counsels’ brief was not overlooked by the court. No reference thereto was made in the opinion because it was not made in the court below, and there was no assignment of error which raised any question upon this particular point, and for the further and more substantial reason that the respective counsel herein stipulated “that the lands involved in said case against Brown and in the said case against Bray are in the same situation and condition as respects the claimed limits of the Jurupa Rancho and Juapti Rancho and preliminary surveys of said ranchos.” For the same reasons a rehearing should not be allowed. Moreover, the record does not indisputably show, as claimed by the appellant, that lots 1 and 2, even if not included within the Reynolds survey, were public lands, which passed by the grant to appellant The petition for rehearing is denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amrit K. Das, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of netGuru, 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; and

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report.


Date: April 20, 2005

/s/ AMRIT K. DAS
----------------
Amrit K. Das, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)




I, Bruce K. Nelson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of netGuru, 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; and

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report.


Date: April 20, 2005

/s/ BRUCE K. NELSON
-------------------
Bruce K. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10249

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO TAFOLLA-MORENO, also known as Ramiro Prado-Tafolla, also known

as Sergio Tafallo-Moreno,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-136-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio Tafolla-Moreno

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Tafolla-Moreno has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-10249 Document: 00511450241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
No. 10-10249

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-10249 Document: 00511450241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Naber Al-Jabil Company ) ) Under Contract No. W90VCM-09-P-0339 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 59061

Mr. Ali Mohammad Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Evan C. Williams, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL Appellant has indicated that it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's docket. Dated: 25 February 2014

Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 59061, Appeal ofNaherAl-Jabil Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (40)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,908
<PP&E>                                           9,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,870)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,013
<BONDS>                                         69,464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,662
<SALES>                                         50,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,545
<CGS>                                           31,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3203 

To amend section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

expedite the process for requesting de novo classification of a device. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 14, 2011 

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. LANCE, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. 

PAULSEN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. GUTHRIE, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. DENT, Mr. 

STEARNS, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. SHIMKUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expedite the process for requesting de novo 

classification of a device. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Novel Device Regu5 latory Relief Act of 2011’’. 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3203 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DE NOVO APPLICATION PROC2 ESS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 513(f)(2)(A) of the Fed4 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

5 360c(f)(2)(A)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(A) Any person’’ and all that 

7 follows through ‘‘to classify’’ and inserting ‘‘(A)(i) 

8 Any person introducing or delivering for introduction 

9 into interstate commerce for commercial distribution 

10 a device intended for human use may request that 

11 the Secretary classify’’; and 

12 (2) by inserting after ‘‘classification.’’ the fol13 lowing: 

14 ‘‘(ii) A person may submit a request under clause (i) 

15 without regard to whether such person has received writ16 ten notice of classification into class III under paragraph 

17 (1).’’. 

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 513(f)(1) 

19 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)) is amended— 

20 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

21 the end; 

22 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

23 and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

24 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the fol25 lowing: 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3203 IH

1 ‘‘(C) the device is classified pursuant to a 

2 request submitted under paragraph (2).’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES v. JAFFRAY et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

January 13, 1897.)

Tarii’j? Act 1S90 — Velvet Ribbons — -Duty.

Velvet ribbons are dutiable as “manufactures ox silk,” under paragraph 414, Act 1890, and not as “velvets, plushes,” etc., under paragraph 411.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Wallace Maefarlane, U. S. Atfcv., and Jas. T. Van Rensselaer, Asst. U. S. Atty.

Chas. Curie, David Ives Mackie, and W. Wickham Smith, for appellees.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the evidence in the record, we are of the opinion that the importations in controversy — velvet ribbons — are not “velvets, plushes, or other pile fabrics,” within the meaning of paragraph 411 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890. Velvet ribbons are without a selvedge, and, according to the commercial understanding which prevailed at the date of the passage of the act, were excluded, for that reason, from the category of the paragraph. They were therefore dutiable under paragraph 414, as “manufactures of silk, or of which silk is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this act.” The adjudication of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
Exhibit
10.23


 


AMENDMENT
#5 TO


LICENSE
AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment #5, dated as of December 14, 2017 (this “Agreement”), to the License Agreement (as defined below) is by
and between the University of Virginia Patent Foundation d/b/a the University of Virginia Licensing and Ventures Group, a Virginia
not-for-profit corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, having its principal offices at 1180 Seminole Tr., Suite 495, Charlottesville,
VA 29901 (“UVA LVG”), and Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a Delaware corporation (f/k/a ADial Pharmaceuticals,
LLC) (“Adial” and together with “UVA LVG”, the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties have entered into that certain licensing agreement dated as of January 21, 2011 and as amended on October 21, 2013,
and as further amended on May 18, 2016, March 27, 2017, and August 15, 2017 (together, the “License Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
Adial has filed a Form S-1 registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in which it published the development
plan for the development of the compound known as AD04 and in which an initial Phase 3 trial is described (the “Planned
Phase 3 Trial”), and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties wish to clarify and amend the License Agreement as provided herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual covenants set forth below, the parties hereto agree
to amend and clarify the License Agreement as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


 1. A new Section 1.13-A is added as follows:




 


“1.13-AA
“Phase III clinical trial” shall mean a clinical trial intended to meet the requirements for a Phase 3 trial as defined
in 21 C.F.R. § 312.21(c).


 


2. The date in Section 4.2.B. is changed to December 31, 2024.


 


3. The date in Section 4.2.C. is changed to December 31, 2025.


 


4. Adial represents and warrants that the Planned Phase 3 Trial (as defined herein) is a Phase III clinical trial.


 


5. The Parties agree that dosing of the first patient in the Planned Phase 3 trial will qualify as initiation of Phase III clinical
trials and, thereby, (i) trigger payment under Section 3.5A of the License Agreement, and (ii) satisfy the requirements of Section
4.2A of the License Agreement.


 


6. Except as provided herein, the terms and obligations of the Parties under the License Agreement shall remain unchanged.


 






     

     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date first written above.


 





	University of Virginia Patent Foundation d/b/a the University of Virginia Licensing
    & Ventures Group 	 	Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michael P. Straightift	 	By:	/s/ William Stilley
	Name:	Michael P. Straightift	 	Name:	William Stilley
	Title:	Executive Director 	 	Title:	CEO
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Peter M. Grant, II	 	 	 
	Name:	Peter M. Grant, II	 	 	 
	Title:	Chair, Board of Directors	 	 	 




 


 


 2
Exhibit 23



AJ. ROBBINS, P.C.

Certified Public Accountants

216 Sixteenth Street

Suite 600

Denver, Colorado 80202





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc.
Newport Beach, California

We consent to the inclusion and use in the Annual Report on form 10-KSB of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 of our report dated February 23, 2007 except for note 10 for which the date is March 7, 2007, appearing in that Annual Report.

We further consent to the reference by incorporation of the aforesaid report in Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. registration statements on form S-8 (333-113638 and 333-104741).

/s/ AJ. Robbins PC.



AJ. Robbins PC

Certified Public Accountants



Denver Colorado
April 3, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.2 (a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Optimal Group Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to the best of the undersigneds knowledge:

|1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q / A (Amendment No. 1) to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 5, 2004

| |     |                                                      
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Gary S. Wechsler                                 
| |     | Gary S. WechslerTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of this report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 12

                                                                  
                  UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION                  
                 UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.

          Computation of earnings to fixed charges ratio
                    (In thousands of dollars)      
                                                                  
                                                                  
                               Fiscal Years Ended
                ------------------------------------------------
                  1996      1995      1994      1993      1992
                --------  --------  --------  --------  -------- 

Earnings (loss)
 before fixed
 charges:

 Income (loss)
  from 
  continuing
  operations
  before income
  taxes (1)     ($30,761)  $34,369 ($204,925) ($18,259) ($29,809) 
 
 Interest and
  debt expense   106,456   114,034   128,567   120,567   125,444

 Undistributed
  (earnings) loss
  of less than
  50% owned
  affiliates         362       149       (32)      884     1,233

 Interest
  portion of
  rent expense     2,705     2,193     2,051     2,012     1,942
                --------  --------  --------  --------  -------- 
Earnings (loss)
 before fixed
 charges         $78,762  $150,745  ($74,339) $105,204   $98,810 
                ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
                      
Fixed charges:

 Interest and
  debt expense   106,456   114,034   128,567   120,567   125,444

 Interest
  portion of
  rent expense     2,705     2,193     2,051     2,012     1,942
   
 Capitalized
  interest         1,677     2,518       378       964     2,397
                --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
  Fixed 
  charges       $110,838  $118,745  $130,996  $123,543  $129,783 
                ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

Deficiency
 in earnings
 available to
 cover fixed
 charges         $32,076            $205,335   $18,339   $30,973  
                ========            ========  ========  ========

Ratio of earnings
 to fixed charges             1.27
                          ========

___
(1)  Includes $52.6 million of merger and related costs and a $30
million special environmental provision in fiscal 1996, and a
$191 million write-off of intangible assets in fiscal 1994.
Order filed November 14, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00118-CR

____________

JUAN THEO VEGA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 56th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-CR-3331

ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, James DuCote. Appellant’s 

brief was due July 10, 2019. We have granted a total of 90 days to file appellant’s 

brief until November 8, 2019. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no 

further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. 

On November 5, 2019, counsel informed this court that appellant no longer 

desires to pursue his appeal and counsel is in the process of obtaining appellant’s 
signature on a motion to dismiss the appeal. We construe this information as a 

request for a further extension of time in light of these circumstances. 

Accordingly, we grant an extension of time to file a brief or motion to dismiss

with the clerk of this court until December 16, 2019. If counsel does not timely file 

appellant’s brief as ordered, or file appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal, the court 

may issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine if appellant desires to dismiss his appeal and consider other 

appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.