alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (32b)








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, William M. McKay, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.








May 11, 2010
  /s/
William M. McKayWilliam M. McKayChief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.1303 Annual income exclusions for the Rent Supplement Program. ( a ) The exclusions to annual income described in 24 CFR 5.609(c) apply to those rent supplement contracts governed by the regulations at 24 CFR part 215 in effect immediately before May 1, 1996 (contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219), in lieu of the annual income exclusions described in 24 CFR 215.21(c) (contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219).
( b ) The mandatory deductions described in 24 CFR 5.611(a) also apply to the rent supplement contracts described in paragraph (a) of this section in lieu of the deductions provided in the definition of “adjusted income” in 24 CFR 215.1 (as contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219).
( c ) The definition of “persons with disabilities” in paragraph (c) of this section replaces the terms “disabled person” and “handicapped person” used in the regulations in 24 CFR part 215, subpart A (as contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219). *Person with disabilities,* as used in this part, has the same meaning as provided in 24 CFR 891.305.
[66 FR 6224, Jan. 19, 2001]
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, J. Matthew Bond, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PRA International;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;          (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide for reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Signature:/s/ J. Matthew Bond
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 10.03

                AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO IRU CAPACITY AGREEMENT


This Amendment Number Four ("Amendment"), effective as of the date signed by
both parties (the "Effective Date"), amends the IRU Capacity Agreement
("Agreement") entered into as of December 19, 1998 between AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"),
a New York corporation with offices at 295 North Maple Avenue, Basking Ridge,
New Jersey 07920, and At Home Corporation, ("@Home"), a Delaware corporation
with a principal place of business located at 425 Broadway, Redwood City, CA
94063, as previously amended, as follows:

1.  Under the terms of Section 6.1 of the Agreement, @Home has the right to
request an upgrade of the @Home Backbone Network to include additional network
electronics, referred to in the Agreement as a Requested Upgrade.  @Home has
exercised this right with respect to the four Routes listed below in order to
create an express route between San Jose, CA (SNJSCA02) and Camden, NJ
(CMDNNJCE).

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
  No.             City A                    City Z                  CLLI Code A             CLLI Code Z

<S>        <C>                       <C>                       <C>                     <C>
   1            San Jose, CA              Longmont, CO               SNJSCA02               LNMTCO01
   2            Longmont, CO              Chicago, IL                LNMTCO01               CHCGILCLW60
   3            Chicago, IL               Cleveland, OH              CHCGILCLW60            CLEVOHO2S10
   4            Cleveland, OH             Camden, NJ                 CLEVOHO2S1             CMDNNJCE
</TABLE>

2.  The Upgrade Cost associated with this Requested Upgrade and calculated under
the provisions of Section 7.1 is $2,482,680. @Home shall pay $248,268 to AT&T
within ten days after the Effective Date, and $2,234,412 within ten days after
the Acceptance Date of the Requested Upgrade.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this
Amendment as of the Effective Date.



AT&T CORP.                              AT HOME CORPORATION

By: /s/                                 By: /s/ Milo Medin
   ------------------------                ----------------------------
Title: President                        Title: CTO, SVP Engineering
      ---------------------                   -------------------------
Date: 5/17/00                           Date: 5/8/00
     ----------------------                  --------------------------
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2496

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Mallam Tifah,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: March 6, 2014

Filed: April 17, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mallam Tifah pleaded guilty to manufacturing and possessing with intent to

distribute marijuana, and maintaining a drug-involved premises, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 856(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to 1

17 months in prison. In this direct appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel argues

that the district court erred in its offense level calculation. Tifah has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, in which he argues that the sentence was substantively

unreasonable, his counsel was ineffective, and this court should strike the Anders

brief. Tifah has also filed a pro se motion requesting records.

Tifah’s plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, which we hold is valid and

which we will enforce. See United States v. Azure, 571 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2009)

(standard of review). Tifah’s challenge to his sentence falls within the scope of the

appeal waiver; the record reflects that he knowingly and voluntarily entered into the

waiver and the plea agreement; and enforcing the waiver does not result in a

miscarriage ofjustice, as Tifah’s 17-month sentence is within the statutory sentencing

ranges for his offenses. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc); see also 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 856(b). We decline to consider

Tifah’s ineffective-assistance claims in this direct appeal. See United States v.

Hubbard, 638 F.3d 866, 869 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d

1053, 1060 (8th Cir. 2010).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, Tifah’s pending motion is denied, and

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
 
 4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.
  5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, that is included in these reports.
 
 In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.
  By:
/s/ Chadwick S. ParsonName:
Chadwick S. ParsonTitle:
Managing Director and PresidentStructured Obligations Corporation(senior officer in charge of securitization function of the Depositor)Dated:  March 30, 2017
Exhibit 32.1  Section 1350 certification of Chief Executive Officer   I, Joseph V. Vittoria, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  1.
     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   August 16, 2010/s/ Joseph V VittoriaName: Joseph V. Vittoria
Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 20, 2017

NO. 03-16-00044-CV

Lennis L. Nichols, Appellant

v.

Brent Goodger and Patrice Goodger, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND GOODWIN 

AFFIRMED—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on December 15, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Universal Automotive Supply Co., appellee, v. Charles L. Metty et al., on appeal of Frank W. Steele, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,751.

Action of attachment. Writ served on defendants and on garnishee. Judgment by default against defendants, and conditional judgment against garnishee. *Scire facias*against garnishee. Judgment against garnishee. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George B. Holmes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 9, 1923.

A. J. Deutschman, for appellant. Fred L. Steers, for appellee.

Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING SELECTED ADR PROCESS 

CASE NO. 09-cv-01247 MMC

Greg L. Lippetz (State Bar No. 154228) 

glippetz@jonesday.com

Cora L. Schmid (State Bar No. 237267) 

JONES DAY 

1755 Embarcadero Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: 650-739-3939 

Facsimile: 650-739-3900 

Attorneys for Defendant Nokia Inc. 

David N. Kuhn (State Bar No. 73389) 

Attorney-at-Law 

144 Hagar Avenue 

Piedmont, CA 94611 

Telephone: (510) 653-4983 

E-mail: dnkuhn@pacbell.net 

Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Bender 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

Gregory Bender, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

Nokia Inc., 

Defendant.

Case No. C09-01247 MMC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING SELECTED 

ADR PROCESS 

Plaintiff Gregory Bender (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Nokia Inc, (“Defendant”), through 

their respective counsel, hereby make the following stipulation: 

WHEREAS, on October 2, 2009, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order 

Selecting ADR Process, which selected Court Mediation Process under ADR L.R. 6. (D.I. 28).

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the Court granted the proposed order and referred the 

parties to Court Mediation Process. (D.I. 30). 

WHEREAS, the parties now wish to change the designated ADR process to private 

mediation. 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE THAT: 

 (1) This case will be removed from the Court Mediation Process. 

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 51 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING SELECTED ADR PROCESS 

CASE NO. 09-cv-01247 MMC

 (2) The parties instead stipulate to private mediation with mediator Randall Wulff of 

Wulff, Quinby & Sochynsky, or, if Mr. Wulff is unavailable and both parties agree on a different 

mediator, with a different mediator. 

 (3) The private mediation will be completed by 90 days following the issuance of the 

claim construction order in this action.

Dated: April 1, 2010 

Respectfully submitted, 

Jones Day 

By: /s/ Gregory Lippetz 

Greg L. Lippetz 

State Bar No. 154228 

JONES DAY 

Silicon Valley Office 

1755 Embarcadero Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: 650-739-3939 

Facsimile: 650-739-3900 

Counsel for Defendant Nokia Inc. 

In accordance with General Order No. 45, Section X(B), the above signatory attests that 

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below. 

Dated: April 1, 2010 By: /s/ David Kuhn 

David N. Kuhn 

Attorney-at-Law 

144 Hagar Avenue 

Piedmont, California 94611 

Telephone: (510) 653-4983 

Counsel for Plaintiff Gregory Bender 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: 

DATED: ______________, 2010 By: 

THE HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Court Judge 

SVI-78472v1

April 6

Case 3:09-cv-01247-MMC Document 51 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2
### §9704. National reactor engineering simulator feasibility study

#### (a) Consultative requirements; purpose

The Secretary, in consultation with the Commission and the Advisory Committee, shall initiate a study of the need for and feasibility of establishing a reactor engineering simulator facility at a national laboratory, for the primary purpose of fostering research in generic design improvements and simplifications through the simulation of the performance of various types of light water reactors under a wide variety of abnormal conditions and postulated accident conditions.

#### (b) Applicability of relevant factors

In performing the study, the Secretary shall consider relevant factors including, but not limited to—

(1) the potential advantages that would accrue from the establishment of such a facility;

(2) the extent to which such a facility would further the generic safety research and development program established by this chapter;

(3) the extent to which such a facility can be established by nongovernmental entities;

(4) the opportunities for cost sharing by nongovernmental entities in the construction and operation of such a facility;

(5) the importance of such a facility in emergencies to limit the extent of any future nuclear powerplant excursions;

(6) the potential for international cooperation in the establishment and operation of such a facility; and

(7) the appropriate national laboratory for siting such a facility.

#### (c) Report to Congressional committees

The Secretary shall, by January 1, 1982, submit to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report characterizing the study and the resulting conclusions and recommendations.

(Pub. L. 96–567, §5, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3331.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of certain functions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Chairman thereof, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1980, 45 F.R. 40561, 94 Stat. 3585, set out as a note under section 5841 of this title.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEMA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WILLIAM KOPERWHATS, et al.,

Defendants, /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C-09-1587 MMC

ORDER VACATING MAY 28, 2010

HEARINGS ON KEMA DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

AND AXMOR’S MOTION TO DISMISS

SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Before the Court is counterclaim defendant KEMA USA, Inc., counterclaim

defendant KEMA, Inc., counterclaim defendant RLW Analytics, Inc., and counterclaim

defendant Curt Puckett’s (collectively “KEMA Defendants”) joint Motion to Dismiss and

Motion to Strike Second Amended Counterclaims, filed April 23, 2010. Counterclaim

plaintiff William Koperwhats (“Koperwhats”) has filed opposition, to which KEMA

Defendants have replied. Also before the Court is counterclaim defendant Axmor

Software-America, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Counterclaims, filed April 23,

2010. Koperwhats has filed opposition to which Axmor has replied. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-01587-MMC Document 146 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motions, the Court deems the matters appropriate for determination on the parties’ written

submissions, and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for May 28, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01587-MMC Document 146 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Village of Hastings-On-Hudson et al., Appellants, v. New Rochelle Water Company, Respondent.

In an action to enjoin defendant from shutting off its supply of free water to plaintiffs and to declare that defendant is required to supply plaintiffs with free water pursuant to a contract of March 8, 1887, which was continued for 10 years on February 26, 1894, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered December 18, 1957, dismissing the complaint, after a non jury trial. The trial court found: (1) that the contract which expired on February 26, 1904 was not extended, renewed or continued; (2) that after the expiration of the contract, defendant’s predecessor continued in business by virtue of a franchise granted by the Sítate and not because of any rights granted to it by the village; (3) that the Public Service Commission, which was given exclusive jurisdiction in 1931 to fix reasonable rates of water works companies, did fix the rates which plaintiffs were required to pay for water. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.