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**

 

The undersigned officerof Chase Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010(the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.This certificate is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

Date:  April 9,2010

 
|  /s/ Kenneth L. Dumas             |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| Kenneth L. Dumas                       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |   |
| (Principal financial  officer)         |   |

 

----
EX-10.22





 Exhibit 10.22 

AMENDMENT NO. 6 
 TO

 AMENDED AND RESTATED 

2013 STOCK OPTION PLAN 

WHEREAS, the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc.
Amended and Restated 2013 Stock Option Plan, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 – 5 (as amended, the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company have determined it in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan pursuant to
Section 13 thereof to provide for an additional number of Shares (as defined in the Plan) currently available under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE,
effective as of the date approved by the Company’s shareholders, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such
terms in the Plan. 


  

	 	2.	 Stock Subject to the Plan. The second sentence of Section 3 of the Plan shall be amended and
restated in its entirety to reflect the increase in available options to read as follows: 


 “Subject to the
provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, the maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be issued upon exercise of such Options is Eighty Eight Thousand Ninety Four (88,094) Shares.” 

Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

This Amendment has been adopted by the Board of Directors as of December 13, 2016.
**Exhibit 10.1**AMENDMENT NO. 1 to

WARRANT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT AGREEMENT, dated as of April 21, 2003, by and among LabOne, Inc. (the "Company") and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe IX, L.P. ("WCAS").

WHEREAS, the undersigned are parties to a Warrant Agreement, dated as of August 31, 2001 (the "Warrant Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company issued certain common stock warrants (the "Warrants") to WCAS and the other parties named on the signature pages to the Warrant Agreement;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14 of the Warrant Agreement, the Warrant Agreement may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the registered holders of a majority of the common stock issued or issuable upon exercise of the Warrants;  

WHEREAS, WCAS is the registered holder of a majority of the common stock issued or issuable upon exercise of the Warrants; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Warrant Agreement as follows;

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereby amend the Warrant Agreement by deleting the provisions of Section 5(e) in their entirety and replacing them with the following: "[RESERVED]".

Except as provided herein, no other amendments or modifications are being made to the Warrant Agreement.  This amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  Any or all of such counterparts may be executed and delivered by facsimile.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this instrument as of the date first above written.

			LAB*ONE*, INC.

				

			

By: _____________________________________

			Name: Joseph C. Benage

			Title: Executive Vice President & General Counsel

 

 

WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE IX, L.P.

By:  WCAS IX Associates LLC, its General Partner

By:  ____________________________________

Name: Paul B. Queally

Title: Managing Member****
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey R. REDMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-1058.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 13, 2014.

*475BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; KEITH and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The district court revoked Jeffrey R. Redmond’s supervised release and imposed a prison sentence. Redmond appeals.

Redmond pleaded guilty to making a false statement to an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). In 2010, the district court sentenced him to thirteen months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release. In 2011, Redmond began serving his term of supervised release. In January 2014 he admitted that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by engaging in four instances of mail fraud. The district court determined that Redmond’s guidelines range of imprisonment was four to ten months. The court revoked Redmond’s supervised release and sentenced him to six months in prison with no supervised release to follow.

On appeal, Redmond argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper consideration to his health problems and his attempts to make restitution to his victims. We review sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release under an abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness, which has both a procedural and a substantive component. *United States v. Polihonki,*543 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir.2008). A sentence may be substantively unreasonable where the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, fails to consider a pertinent sentencing factor, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor. *United States v. Vowell,*516 F.3d 503, 510 (6th Cir.2008). We apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness to a within-guidelines sentence. *United States v. Vonner,*516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Redmond’s six-month prison sentence is substantively reasonable. In imposing the sentence, the district court considered several relevant sentencing factors, including the serious and repetitive nature of Redmond’s criminal activities, his significant risk of recidivism, and the fact that super*476vised release had not deterred Redmond from committing additional criminal acts. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e). In addition, the district court noted Redmond’s argument concerning his health problems, but concluded that a lesser sentence was not warranted because the problems did not excuse his criminal conduct and they were largely the same as when Redmond was originally sentenced in 2010. Finally, when viewed in light of the other sentencing factors discussed by the district court, the fact that Redmond had begun paying restitution to his victims is insufficient to overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Cochrane,*702 F.3d 334, 345 (6th Cir.2012).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
U.S. flag
    An official website of the United States government
     Here’s how you know Here’s how you know **Official websites use .gov**  A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**  A **lock** ( A locked padlock ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
 Farm Service Agency
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 About FSA
  Ask USDA
  Contact Us
  Forms
 Menu
  close
   Home
    Programs & Services
     ARC/PLC Program
         Civil Rights
         Certified Mediation Program
         Climate Adaptation Plan
         Conservation Programs
         Cooperative Agreements
         Dairy Margin Coverage Program
         Disaster Assistance Programs
         Economic & Policy Analysis
       Emergency Relief 
         Environmental & Cultural Resource Compliance
         Farm Bill Home
         Farm Labor Stabilization & Protection Pilot Grants
         Farm Loan Programs
         Financial Management Information
         Increasing Land Access
         Initiatives
       Laws and Regulations
         Margin Protection Program for Dairy
         Market Facilitation Program
         MIDAS
         Organic Certification Cost Share Program
         Outreach & Education
         Payment Eligibility
         Price Support
         Rice Production Program
    State Offices
    Online Services
     LDP
         eARC/PLC
         Farmers.gov (FSA Farm+)
         FSA Online Data Resources
         Loan Assistance Tool
    Newsroom
     Fact Sheets
         News Releases
         Emergency Designations
         Stakeholder Information
         eFOIA
       Meetings & Events
         Public Service Announcements
         County Committee Elections
         Fence PostSearch small Search
 Missouri State Events
 Section TopicsMissouri HomeCounty OfficesCounty PCP DataDaily LDP RatesProgramsNewslettersState EventsState News ReleasesResources
 State Executive Director Joe Aull  Read Joe Aull'
 State Office Address 601 Business Loop 70 WestSuite 225
Columbia, MO65203(573) 876-0925
 Calendar of Events DateEvent InformationLocationSchedule Forthcoming See the Missouri Department of Agriculture Events Calendar for more Agriculture related events.  Other Dates to Remember National Program DeadlinesFederal Holidays
 Home
   Programs & Services
   State Offices
   Online Services
   Newsroom
 Farmers.gov
          USA.gov
          USDA.gov
          Whitehouse.gov
       Accessibility Statement
          Common Questions
          Freedom of Information Act
       No FEAR Report
          Information Quality
          Non-Discrimination Statement
       Policies and Links
          Privacy Policy
          Sitemap
    Sign up for updates
      Subscribe
 Farm Service Agency
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 facebook-loFacebook
 youtube-loYouTube
 twitter-loTwitter
 gov-delivery-loTwitter
 rss-loRSS
944 A.2d 76

#### In re NOMINATION PAPERS OF John ALWARD. Appeal of Becky Lynn Travis.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 4, 2008.

John Joseph Shimek, III, Quinn, Buseck. Leemhuis, Toohey *&*Kroto, Inc, Erie, for Becky Lynn Travis, appellant.

John Alward, for John Alward, appellee.

BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD and McCAFFERY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2008, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED. Appellee’s petition for leave to file a brief is DISMISSED as moot.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of Chase Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011 (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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certificate is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 
| Date:    April 11, 2011      |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
| /s/   Peter R. Chase                   |   |
|                                   |   |
| Peter   R. Chase                       |   |
| Chairman   and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal   executive officer)        |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 11171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4339]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of 
January 3, 2001

    In accordance with Sec. 71.5 of its rules regarding availability of 
information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic 
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its 
meeting held on January 3, 2001.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 
meeting of January 3, 2001, which include the domestic policy 
directive issued at that meeting, are available upon request to the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and 
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial 
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable 
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in 
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent 
with a reduction of the federal funds rate to an average of around 6 
percent.
    By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, February 2, 2001.

Donald L. Kohn,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
[FR Doc. 01-4339 Field 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32.1

             CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and
acting Chief Financial Officer of Superconductive Components, Inc., an Ohio
corporation (the "Company") and hereby certifies as follows:

                  (1) The periodic report containing financial statements to
which this certificate is an exhibit 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 to which
this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

         In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

August 13, 2003                         /s/ Daniel Rooney
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Daniel Rooney
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 12

- 884 V

Filed: April 15, 2014

Not for P ublication

*************************************

LYNN KOETJE

, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Damages decision based on stipulation;

v. * DTaP vaccine; acute demyelinating

* encephalomyelitis

SECRETARY OF HEA LTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Scott W. Rooney

, Farmington Hills, MI

, for petitioner

. Jennifer L. Reynaud , Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On April 14, 2014 , the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to settle

this case and described t he settlement terms. Petitioner allege s that s he suffered acute

demyelinating encephalomyelitis (“ADEM”) that w as caused by her April 9, 2012, receipt of

Diphtheria

- Te tanus

- acellular Pertussis (“DTaP”) vaccine

. Sh e further alleges that s he

experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Respondent denies that

DTaP vaccine caused petitioner’s ADEM and its residual effects, any other injuries, or her current

condition

. Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned exp lanation for the special master’ s action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made

available to the public u nless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, peti tioner has 14 days to identify and

move to delete such information prior to the document ’ s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall

delete such material from public access.2

The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby

adopts the parties ’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and

o n the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of

$90 ,000.00 , representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C.

§ 300aa

- 15(a) (2006 ) . The award shall be in the form of a check for $90 ,000.00 made payable to

petitioner

.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the

court is directed to enter judgment herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2014 s/ Laura D. Millman

Laura D. Millman

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party , either separately or

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.Dated: April 14, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 249 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 249

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 in order to require reciprocal responses 
 to foreign acts, policies, and practices that deny national treatment 
                      to United States investment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. McCandless introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Trade Act of 1974 in order to require reciprocal responses 
 to foreign acts, policies, and practices that deny national treatment 
                      to United States investment.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 301 of the 
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(except with respect to the action 
        required under subsection (c)(2))'' before ``subject to the 
        specific direction,'' in subsection (b);
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) of 
        subsection (c) as paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) of subsection (c) the 
        following new paragraph:
            ``(2) For purposes of carrying out the provisions of 
        subsection (b) with respect to any act, policy, or practice of 
        a foreign country that denies national treatment to United 
        States investment, action by the United States shall be treated 
        as being appropriate and the Trade Representative shall, in 
        addition to any other action considered appropriate and 
        feasible, impose with respect to investment by that country and 
        its nationals in the United States conditions, limitations, and 
        prohibitions that are similar to those implemented through such 
        act, policy, or practice.''.

                                 <all>
```
No. 98-40815 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40815 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ-SOTO, also known as Elmer Antonio Gonzalez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-128-01

- - - - - - - - - - April 30, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Miguel Angel Hernandez-Soto appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326. Hernandez challenges the characterization of his prior Texas conviction for possession of cocaine as an aggravated felony and the concomitant 16-level increase in his base offense level under by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2).No. 98-40815 -2- Because Hernandez did not make this argument in the district court, his sentence is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Rodriguez , 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir., 1994). Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997). Hernandez’s contention that the term “drug trafficking” as cited to by the Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague and does not provide notice that it applies to mere possession of drugs is unfounded. United States v. Pearson , 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1991). Hernandez’s appeal is frivolous. See United States v. Arevalo-Sanchez , No. 98-20093 (5th Cir. Sept. 23, 1998) (unpublished), petition for cert. filed , No. 98-7384 (Dec. 18, 1998). Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.