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 Quarterly Report of Superconductive Components,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gerald S. Blaskie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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 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/ Gerald S. Blaskie
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Gerald S. Blaskie
                                                Chief Financial Officer of
                                                Superconductive Components, Inc.
                                                November 11, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12533-12534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4649-N-03]


Announcement of OMB Approval Number for Annual Progress Report 
(APR) for Competitive Homeless Assistance Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Announcement of OMB Approval Number.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the OMB approval 
number for the collection of information

[[Page 12534]]

pertaining to Rural Housing and Economic Development Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Garrity, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20410, telephone (202) 708-4300. This is not a toll-free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), this notice advises 
that OMB has responded to the Department's request for approval of the 
information collection pertaining to Annual Progress Report (APR) for 
Competitive Homeless Assistance Programs. The OMB approval number for 
this information collection is 2506-0145, which expires on April 30, 
2003.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

    Dated: February 15, 2001.
Donna M. Abbenante,
Acting General Deputy Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-4784 Filed 2-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
EX-10.14





 Exhibit 10.14 

 
 



 
 June 23, 2016 
 Jose
Revuelta 
 COO/Interim CFO 
 Re: Executive Compensation
Package 
 Dear Jose: 
 The board of directors (the
“Board”) of Montrose Environmental Group, Inc (the “Company”) has approved an executive compensation package for you which is summarized herein. In addition to company benefit plans offered to you from time to time by the
Company, you shall be eligible for the following compensation package: 
 Base Compensation: $250,000 per year 

Cash Bonus Program: The cash bonus program you are eligible for has been separately approved by the Board and all payments thereunder remain subject to
Board approval. 
 IPO/Change in Control Cash Bonus Amount: $1,000,000 shall be payable to you in cash upon the occurrence of a change in control or
effectiveness of an Initial Public Offering of the Company. A change in control shall be defined as set forth in the Company’s equity incentive plan. 

Equity Incentive Award: You will be granted 5,515 new options under the Company’s equity incentive program, which shall be updated upon approval
by the Board and requisite shareholders to increase the number of options available for grant. The options shall vest over a four year period, with 50% vesting at the second anniversary of the vesting start date and the remaining 50% vesting at the
fourth anniversary of the vesting start date. The vesting start date shall be the vesting start date of options you received in 2015. The options shall fully accelerate upon a change in control of the Company (not including an Initial Public
Offering) as set forth in the Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. 2013 Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan. All options previously granted to you in 2015 shall be cancelled. Any options previously granted to you in 2014 shall remain in place,
subject to the terms thereof (including acceleration upon change of control or Initial Public Offering of the Company). 
 Severance Upon Termination
Without Cause Following a Change in Control: If you are terminated without cause or terminate your employment for good reason within twelve (12) months following a change in control of the Company, you shall be entitled to receive severance
in the amount of one year of your then-current base salary, which may be payable in lump sum or as continued compensation during the 12 month severance period, as determined by the Company. 

We look forward to your continued success with Montrose. 

Regards, 
 /s/ Richard Perlman 

Richard Perlman 
 Chairman of the Board 

Montrose Environmental Group, Inc. 
  

			
	 Global Headquarters

1 Park Plaza
 Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92614
	 	 T: 949.988.3500
 F: 949.988.3514

info@montrose-env.com
 www.montrose-env.com
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131122 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131122 

 COA: 264064 

Kent CC: 99-006753-FC 

MANUEL LEE WADE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
2009-1520.

#### State v. Kupay-Zimerman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 92043, 2009-Ohio-3596. On motion to vacate order granting stay. Motion denied.

O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.
I

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.

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

3 That section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

4 2411) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(except with respect to the ac6 tion required under subsection (c)(2))’’ before ‘‘sub7 ject to the specific direction,’’ in subsection (b);
2

•HR 249 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through

2 (6) of subsection (c) as paragraphs (3) through (7),

3 respectively; and

4 (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) of sub5 section (c) the following new paragraph:

6 ‘‘(2) For purposes of carrying out the provi7 sions of subsection (b) with respect to any act, pol8 icy, or practice of a foreign country that denies na9 tional treatment to United States investment, action

10 by the United States shall be treated as being appro11 priate and the Trade Representative shall, in addi12 tion to any other action considered appropriate and

13 feasible, impose with respect to investment by that

14 country and its nationals in the United States condi15 tions, limitations, and prohibitions that are similar

16 to those implemented through such act, policy, or

17 practice.’’.

Æ
#### Kenneth Michael MYERS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72858.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.

Filed Oct. 8, 2010.

Louis A. Gordon, Law Offices of Louis A. Gordon, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza S. Murcia, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*70MEMORANDUM *

The Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of Kenneth Michael Myers’s (“Myers”) request to terminate his removal proceedings was not an error, because the April 26, 2004 letter from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) did not constitute an affirmative communication that Myers had prima facie eligibility to naturalize. Indeed, DHS lacked the power to issue such a communication because Myers was then in removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1429. Contrary to Myers’s assertions, the regulations governing termination of removal do not create a Catch-22 situation for aliens seeking to naturalize while in removal proceedings; rather, an alien must obtain the requisite “affirmative communication” from the DHS *“prior to,*and outside, the [removal] proceedings.” *Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 927, 934 (9th Cir.2007) (emphasis added).

Myers did not demonstrate reliance on the now-repealed § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), when he rejected a plea agreement and elected a jury trial, and therefore he is not now entitled to § 212(c) relief. *See INS v. St. Cyr,*533 U.S. 289, 325-26, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001); *Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik,*291 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2002). For the same reason, Myers failed to demonstrate reliance on the prior version of § 101(a)(13), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13), and therefore he was not entitled to avoid being deemed inadmissible upon his reentry into the country. *See Camins v. Gonzales,*500 F.3d 872, 884-85 (9th Cir.2007).

Because Myers was inadmissible and therefore statutorily ineligible for § 212(c) relief, he cannot establish prejudice stemming from the IJ’s denial of Myers’s request to submit evidence regarding the equities of his case; thus, his due process rights were not violated. *See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir.2006). Finally, because there is a rational basis for Congress’s distinction between aliens who sought § 212(c) relief prior to its repeal and those who did so after, Myers cannot demonstrate an equal protection violation. *See De Martinez v. Ashcroft,*374 F.3d 759, 764 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION DENIED.

*

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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2552

To require that all Government records that contain information bearing

on the last flight and disappearance of Amelia Earhart be transmitted

to the Library of Congress and made available to the public.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1993

Mrs. MINK introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Government Operations and House Administration

A BILL

To require that all Government records that contain information bearing on the last flight and disappearance of

Amelia Earhart be transmitted to the Library of Congress and made available to the public.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

4 In this Act, ‘‘Executive agency’’ has the meaning

5 stated in section 105 of title 5, United States Code.
2

HR 2552 IH

1 SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS.

2 By not later than the date that is ninety days after

3 the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each Execu4 tive agency shall—

5 (1) conduct a search of all records in the con6 trol of the agency to identify each record that con7 tains information that is relevant to—

8 (A) the last flight of Amelia Earhart;

9 (B) the mechanical, navigational, meteoro10 logical, or other problems that caused the end

11 of that flight; and

12 (C) the whereabouts of Amelia Earhart

13 and her navigator, Fred Noonan, and their air14 plane, following their disappearance;

15 (2) declassify any such relevant records that

16 have been classified as Government secrets; and

17 (3) transmit all such relevant records to the Li18 brarian of Congress.

19 SEC. 3. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS.

20 By not later than the date that is one hundred and

21 eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act, the

22 Librarian of Congress shall create an index of records

23 transmitted to the Librarian under section 2 and make

24 the index and records available to the public.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermal DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-4085.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2007.

Decided: March 30, 2007.

Kevin A. Tate, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen S. Marston, Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermal Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for release from solitary confinement. Daniels has been found guilty in his criminal proceedings but is awaiting sentencing. We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); *Cohen v. Benefi*
      *342
      *cial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). In criminal proceedings sentencing is the final decision before which litigation has not ended. *Berman v. United States,*302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). In the criminal context, exceptions to the final judgment rule are rare. *Flanagan v. United States,*465 U.S. 259, 265, 270, 104 S.Ct. 1051, 79 L.Ed.2d 288 (1984). The order Daniels seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.*

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.*

Moreover, Daniels relief, if any, would be in the form of a civil action. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (finding segregation did not violate prisoner’s civil rights). Extended stays on administrative segregation, however, do not ordinarily implicate a protected liberty interest. *Beverati v. Smith,*120 F.3d 500, 502 (4th Cir.1997) (regarding six month stay).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory for Committee for Biological Sciences; Committee of Visitors (1110)                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 20-22, 2001; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. Rm. 680.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part Open, Part Closed (see Agenda)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Judith Verbeke, Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8420.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer comments, and other privileged materials.                    

*Agenda:*                         To provide oversight review of the Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience. Open Sessions: Tuesday March 20, 8:30-10-30 a.m. Wednesday March 21, noon-1:00 p.m.; Thursday 22, 1:00-2:00 p.m.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The meeting has some sessions which are closed to the public, when the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that will include privilege intellectual property and personal information that could harm individuals if disclosed. These matters are exempt under U.S.C. (c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-4562 Filed 2-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-17-00524-CV

Freddie Lee Walker 

v.

David Gutierrez, Chairman of the, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; Roy A. (Tony) Garcia, 

Commissioner; Wanda Saliagas, Commissioner; and Federico Rangel, Board Member

NO. D-1-GN-17-001513 IN THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

INDIGENT

CHAPTER 51

FILING

$10.00

$78.75

$30.00

$25.00

$50.00

$100.00

07/19/2017

06/27/2017

06/22/2017

06/22/2017

06/22/2017

06/22/2017

INDIGENT

UNKNOWN

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

ANT

UNK

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$293.75.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this 25th day of May, 

2018.
## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 24

- 00049

- CV

IN RE TEXAS REGIONAL CLINIC AND MEMORIAL MRI & DIAGNOSTIC

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Ste vens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opin io n by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Relato r s , Texas Regional Clinic and Memorial MRI & Diagnostic , filed a petition for a
wri t of mandamus requesting this Court to vacat e a discovery or der dated May 2, 2024, entered by the trial court in P a no l a Count y
. Because Re l a tor s failed to certify the petition in accordance with Rule 52.3(j) of the Texas Rules of Appe llate P roce dure , we deny the mandamus petition.

“ Mandamus issues only wh en the mandamus re cord establishes (1) a clear abuse of
disc re ti on
. . . , and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, ori g. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria , 878
S.W.2d 1 31, 132 (Tex. 19 94) (per curiam) ; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W. 2d 8 3 3, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) ). “ It is the relator ’ s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient
record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief. ” I d

. (citing Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 839

– 40 ; In re Pilgrim ’ s Pride Corp. , 187 S. W. 3 d 19 7, 198

– 99 (Tex. Ap p.

— T e xarkana 2006 , orig. proceeding) ); se e T E X

. R

. A PP . P. 52.3, 52.7(a)

. Rule 52. 3 provides , “ T he person filing th e petition must certify that he or she has
review ed the petition and concluded that every factual st atem e nt i n the pe t itio n is supported by
competent evidence included in the appendix or recor d. ” S e e T E X

. R

. A PP . P. 5 2.3( j ). We have

rev iewed the Relator s ’ p etition and find there i s no certi fic ation complying with Rule 52.3(j ).

“ ‘ Because th e rec ord in a ma ndam us pro ce eding is assembled by the parties, ’ we must ‘strictly enforce[ ] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the
mandamus record.’ ” In re Porte r , N o. 06

- 21

- 000 54

- C V, 2021 WL 2425251, at *1 ( Tex. App.

— T exarka na June 15, 202 1, ori g. proceeding) ( mem. op
. ) (alteration in original ) ( quoting In re3

Morehead , No. 06

- 21

- 00025

- CV, 2021 WL 1652064, at * 2 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana A pr. 28, 2021, orig. procee ding) (mem. op.) )

. When a r elator does not comply with the Texas Ru les of Appellat e Proc edure, we deny it s petition. See id

. at *2

. B ec ause Relator s did no t comply with Rule 52.3(j), we deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus as wel l as the motion for emergency relief

.

Jeff R ambin Justice
Date Subm itt ed: May 9 , 2024 Date Decided: May 9 , 2024
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2807

For the relief of John Demjanjuk, Sr.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 29, 1993

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of John Demjanjuk, Sr.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAROLE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the At5 torney General shall parole into the United States, John

6 Demjanjuk, Sr.

7 SEC. 2. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO JOHN DEMJANJUK,

8 SR.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any requirement

10 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other provi11 sion of law, John Demjanjuk, Sr., shall be naturalized as

12 a citizen of the United States upon the filing of the appro-
2

•HR 2807 IH

1 priate application and upon being administered the oath

2 of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate ceremony

3 pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and National4 ity Act.

5 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

6 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

7 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 1

8 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ