alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NitroMed, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, James G. Ham, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|Date: March 6, 2008 |  | /s/JAMES G. HAM, IIIJames G. Ham, III
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JUNE 30, 2000, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000, FOR BUSYBOX.COM, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,099,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    490,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,777,967
<PP&E>                                         291,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,940,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,880,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,778,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,940,738
<SALES>                                         73,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,359
<CGS>                                           19,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,697,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,957,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,574,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,575,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,575,796)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
2005 Service Fee Pricing Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.11 
 2005 Service Fee Pricing Agreement 
 Under the Exclusive Technical Service Agreement 

Between 
 Shanghai Acorn Network
Technology Development Co., Ltd. 
 And Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 
 Pursuant to Articles 1 and 2 of the Exclusive Technical Service Agreement entered into on January 1, 2005 in Beijing between Shanghai Acorn Network
Technology Development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter “Party A”) and Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (“Party B”, Party A and Party B may hereinafter be referred collectively as the
“Parties”), Party A and Party B hereby enter into the following 2005 Service Fee Pricing Agreement: 
  

	1.	Party B’s technical staff will provide to Party A technical service as well as the Acorn TV Direct Sale Information System Party B owns for use by Party A. After friendly
negotiations between the two Parties, it is agreed that Party B will collect 5.5% of Party A’s 2005 sale proceeds as technical service charge. 

  

	2.	Apart from the service under Article 1 hereunder, Party B shall also provide to Party A technical support in connection with its well known brand-names to boost Party A’s
business. After friendly negotiations between the two Parties, it is agreed that Party A will at least spend 5% of its sales proceeds on advertising Party B’s well-known brand-names. If the actual spending of Party A on advertising reaches 5%
of its sales proceeds, Party B shall not collect any service charges for its technical services in connection with the brand-names. If Party A’s spending on advertising the brand-names falls short of 5% of its sales proceeds, Party B will
collect such service charges as the Parties agree in accordance with Party A’s actual business condition. 

  

	3.	Party B will collect the technical service charge in advance around mid-year, and will settle with Party A the amount of its technical service charge for the whole year by the end
of the year, in accordance with Party A’s actual business condition of the year and the provisions above. 

  

	4.	Party B shall have the right to adjust the annual rate of its technical service charge in accordance with the nature and amount of such service. 

 This agreement, after being executed by Party A and Party B, shall be a valid component of the Exclusive Technical Service Agreement, and shall be bound
by the provisions thereunder. 
 This agreement is executed by both Parties on December 31, 2005 in two counterparts, with one for each
of the Parties. 
 Party A: Shanghai Acorn Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. 
 Legal Representative: Yang Dongjie (signature) 
 Party B:
Acorn Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 
 Legal Representative: Yang Dong Jie (signature)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3190 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3190

     To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and 
 retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which 
   the manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold violates the 
                              Sherman Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2009

  Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Conyers) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To restore the rule that agreements between manufacturers and 
 retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the price below which 
   the manufacturer's product or service cannot be sold violates the 
                              Sherman Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Discount Pricing Consumer Protection 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MINIMUM RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE.

    Any agreement setting a price below which a product or service 
cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, or distributor shall violate 
section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### JASON MILLER *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 32746)

Beach, Espinosa and Flynn, Js.

Argued November 30

officially released December 20, 2011

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio Alfonso PIEDRA-CASTRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10346.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Sandra Marie Hansen, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eric Dennis Marsteller, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Alfonso Piedra-Castro appeals from the 85-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Piedra-Castro contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to reduce his sentence to account for: (1) the youthfulness and remoteness of his prior enhancing conviction, and (2) the alleged ongoing punishment and deterrent effects from the injury he sustained when apprehended by United States Border Patrol agents.

The record reflects that the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2010).

To the extent Piedra-Castro contends that the district court failed to consider or make required factual findings regarding his injuries and the circumstances surrounding those injuries, these contentions are not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Satiro WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden of Turbeville Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7469.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Jeremy A. Thompson, Law Office of Jeremy A. Thompson, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sátiro Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. *2851595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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.*
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-121252) pertaining to the 2003 Employee Stock Option
Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-121254) 2004 Restricted Stock Plan for Directors of Polymer Group, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of Polymer Group, Inc, incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2005.



Greenville,
South Carolina
March 25, 2005

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL17-93-000]


System Energy Resources, Inc.; Notice of Institution of Section 
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On September 29, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL17-93-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the 
proposed rate decreases of System Energy Resources, Inc. may be unjust 
and unreasonable. System Energy Resources, Inc., 160 FERC ]61,140 
(2017).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17-93-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17-93-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2017), 
within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21871 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
4^ MJ ^J ^^l^ ^sc J//^ S/,<

A? 5 ££*^ CO^/ w, MAY 22 2015

»i/<Y>f ueujif sL^ <;5 (/>""^s: WslJtemei,Gterk

h^JL rD*JLc/> Mi*tr?z( t^S r*^ues<f<zJ FILED IN

~7fcr? ran^e^j- ;> /^^J^ ;n j^~/ A5eMcosta, c/e*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 1, 1996, regarding
the consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows of POLAR EXPRESS CORPORATION (A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AASCHE
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.) for the year ended December 29, 1995,
incorporated by reference from Aasche Transportation Services, Inc. Form 10-K
into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-19475).

                                          BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON

Fayetteville, Arkansas
March 30, 1998
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Marro, Appellant. FJC Security Services, Inc., Respondent; Commissioner of *1243Labor, Respondent.

[988 NYS2d 85]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 14, 2013, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.

Peters, EJ., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-15-0000697 

28-SEP-2015 

03:37 PM 

SCPW-15-0000697
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE HONORABLE GLENN S. HARA, Judge of the Circuit Court

of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge, 

and 

XAVIER J. CORTEZ, JR. aka PEE WEE, Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CR. NO. 15-1-0043)
 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR, IN THE


ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS


(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, J.J.)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner State of Hawai'i’s 

petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, for an 

order staying proceedings, filed on September 24, 2015, the 

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and 

the record, it appears that an appeal from the circuit court’s 

pretrial orders issued in the underlying criminal proceeding is 

pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals (CAAP-15-0000481) 

and petitioner fails to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is 
warranted from this court. See Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson,
 

59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of prohibition
 

is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal
 

appellate procedures; rather, it is available in “rare and
 

exigent circumstances” where “allow[ing] the matter to wend its
 

way through the appellate process would not be in the public
 

interest and would work upon the public irreparable harm”); HRAP
 

Rule 8(c). Accordingly, 


IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

prohibition is denied.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 28, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3193 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South 

United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2009 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. MACK, Mr. CRENSHAW, 

Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. KLEIN

of Florida, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States 

Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse under construction at 

5 101 South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, 

6 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, 

7 Sr., United States Courthouse’’. 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3193 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United 

6 States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**Certification of the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)I, Morris H. Wheeler, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cohesant Technologies Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company;(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.(4) The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andwe have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and
 

 
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (theCompany’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and(5) The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the Company’s internal controls over financialreporting.        /s/ Morris H. Wheeler