alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**RULE      13a-14(1) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE **

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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 operation of the                company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                    December 4, 2007 | /s/                    Cameron King                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      | Chief                    Executive Officer and Chief Financial                    Officer |

----
#### § 29.2522 Grade.

A subdivision of a type according to group, quality, and color.
#### Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellee, v. Sol Rubin et al., defendants, on appeal of Maurice R. Union, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,924.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Max M. Grossman and Samuel Grossman, for appellant. Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellee; William C. MacLean, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

CHARLIE EARL SMITH,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-95-RV-MJF

MARK INCH,

Respondent.

/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation dated February 16, 2021 (doc. 10). The parties were provided 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded an opportunity to file 

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). The 

petitioner has filed an objection (doc. 12), which I have reviewed de novo.

1

Having considered the Report and Recommendation and the objections

thereto timely filed, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

1 On February 26, 2021, the petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file his objections (doc. 11). Before I 

ruled on the motion, the petitioner filed his objections. Consequently, his motion for extension of time (doc. 11) is 

DENIED, as moot.

Case 5:20-cv-00095-RV-MJF Document 13 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 10) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 7) is GRANTED.

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1), challenging the 

judgment of conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Charlie Earl Smith, Bay 

County Circuit Court Case No. 2011-CF-178, is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE as time barred.

4. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

5. The clerk of court shall close this case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2021.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00095-RV-MJF Document 13 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 2
§ 301.11 Notice of quarantine; prohibition on the interstate movement of certain imported plants and plant parts. ( a ) In accordance with part 319 of this chapter, some plants and plant parts may only be imported into the United States subject to certain destination restrictions. That is, under part 319, some plants and plant parts may be imported into some States or areas of the United States but are prohibited from being imported into, entered into, or distributed within other States or areas, as an additional safeguard against the introduction and establishment of foreign plant pests and diseases.
( b ) Under this quarantine notice, whenever any imported plant or plant part is subject to destination restrictions under part 319: ( 1 ) The State(s) or area(s) into which the plant or plant part is allowed to be imported is quarantined with respect to that plant or plant part; and
( 2 ) No person shall move any plant or plant part from any such quarantined State or area into or through any State or area not quarantined with respect to that plant or plant part.
#### § 29.3568 Width.

The relative breadth of a tobacco leaf expressed in relation to its length. Width, as an element of quality, does not apply to tobacco in strip form. (See Elements of Quality, § 29.3586.)

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven J. Malcolm, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Williams Partners L.P.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 34-47986];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 1, 2005                                                          /s/ Steven J. Malcolm    Steven J. Malcolm    Chief Executive Officer of Williams Partners GP
EX-10.23



 






Exhibit 10.23




DOUBLECLICK INC.




Description of Compensation Arrangements for Certain Executive Officers



Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for each of the Company’s named
executive officers and for each other executive officer who is also a member of the Company’s Board
of Directors. The Company’s named executive officers are (1) Kevin Ryan, Chief Executive Officer,
(2) Mok Choe, Chief Information Officer; (3) Bruce Dalziel, Chief Financial Officer; (4) Brian
Rainey, President and General Manager, Data Solutions and (5) David Rosenblatt, President. The
compensation for these executive officers consists of base salary and perquisites, long-term
incentive compensation and, for all officers other than Mr. Kevin O’Connor, annual cash bonus
compensation.



As of March 16, 2005, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the Company’s
named executive officers and each other executive officer who is also a member of the Company’s
Board of Directors:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Title	 	2005 Annual Base Salary	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Kevin O’Connor
	 	$	55,000	 
	Chairman of the Board
	 	 	 	 
	Kevin P. Ryan
	 	$	400,000	 
	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Mok Choe
	 	$	325,000	 
	Chief Information Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Bruce Dalziel
	 	$	290,000	 
	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Dwight A. Merriman
	 	$	250,000	 
	Director and Chief Technology Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Brian Rainey
	 	$	300,000	 
	President and General Manager, Data Solutions
	 	 	 	 
	David Rosenblatt
	 	$	350,000	 
	President
	 	 	 	 





The Company does not have employment agreements with any of its named executive officers or with
its other executive officers who are also members of the Company’s Board of Directors, but has
executed retention agreements with each of its named executive officers, which are described in the
Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 13, 2004.



Additionally, our executive officers are entitled to participate in all health and welfare and
retirement plans, perquisite, fringe benefit and other arrangements generally available to other
salaried employees. They do not, however, receive any additional perquisites that are not
generally available to other salaried employees.



In addition, each officer is entitled to participate in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan, a
non-qualified deferred compensation plan, which is incorporated by reference as Exhibit 10.4 to the
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.



The Company’s named executive officers and Mr. Merriman are eligible for annual performance-based
cash bonuses under the Company’s Corporate Bonus Plan, which is described in the Company’s Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on February 8, 2005.



Long term incentives are provided to the executive officers in accordance with the Amended and
Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, which is attached as Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, or a successor stockholder approved
equity plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE>                         5
<CIK>                0000794927
<NAME>               CANTERBURY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>         1
          
<S>                           <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<CASH>                            287,274
<SECURITIES>                      317,250
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,243,638
<ALLOWANCES>                      (96,094)
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,698,188
<PP&E>                          6,891,595
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,567,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 25,700,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,264,754
<BONDS>                                 0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            6,421
<OTHER-SE>                     16,593,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   25,700,415
<SALES>                        12,122,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               12,122,879
<CGS>                           6,695,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,783,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (1,332,273)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                394,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   581,503
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               581,503
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      581,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Otto L. Anrig, Deceased. Robert Anrig, as Administrator of the Estate of Otto L. Anrig, Deceased, Respondent; Mary A. Smith, Appellant.

In a proceeding to recover possession of certain joint bank accounts claimed to be assets of the estate of Otto L. Anrig, the appeal is from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, entered November 9, 1978, which, after a hearing, directed the appellant to turn over the proceeds and interest of those bank accounts to the administrator of the estate. Decree affirmed, with costs payable by the appellant. The record indicates that appellant entered into a fiduciary and confidential relationship with the decedent. The decedent had been institutionalized for three and a half years before his death and the appellant was managing his affairs during this period pursuant to a power of attorney. Under these circumstances the presumption granted to the appellant as the surviving tenant of the joint bank accounts (see Banking Law, § 675) was rebutted and the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to prove that the joint accounts *948were valid gifts (see *Matter of McMurdo,*56 AD2d 602). On this record, the appellant has not established by clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended to make a gift of the accounts in question (see *Matter of Fiumara,*44 NY2d 915; *Rametta v Kazlo,*68 AD2d 579). We have considered the remaining contentions of the appellant and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 29.1027 Injury.

Hurt or impairment from any cause except the fungus or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state, but which is not serious enough to be classified as waste. (See definitions of Damage and Waste; see also Rule 14.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.25    
    


[SOBRATO
LETTERHEAD] 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE  


        This first amendment to lease ("First Amendment") is made this 3rd day of July, 2002 by and between Sobrato Interests, a California limited partnership
("Landlord") and Affymetrix, Inc., a California Corporation ("Tenant"). 


WITNESSETH


        WHEREAS
Landlord and Tenant entered into a lease dated May 31, 1996 (the "Lease") for the premises ("Premises") located at 3450 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, California; and 



        WHEREAS
effective the date of this First Amendment, Landlord and Tenant wish to modify the Lease to (i) change the Lease Expiration Date; (ii) specify the Base Monthly Rent
due for the period from September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2013; and (iii) modify the provisions of Lease section 28.A. and 28.B; 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, in order to effect the intent of the parties as set forth above and for good and valuable consideration exchanged between the parties, the Lease is amended follows: 


	1.
	The
Lease Expiration Date is changed from August 31, 2003 to August 31, 2013.



	2.
	Base
Monthly Rent from September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2013 shall be:

$63,504.00 per month from September 1, 2003 through August 31, 2006;

$70,308.00 per month from September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2008;

$76,658.40 per month from September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2013.



	3.
	Lease
section 28.A. is modified to eliminate Landlord's right to terminate the Lease in the event Tenant desires to assign or sublet the Premises or any part thereof. Landlord's
only options in such event shall be to permit such assignment or sublease, or to refuse consent pursuant to the Lease.



	4.
	Lease
section 28.B. is modified to make the allocation of sublease and assignment profits an equal 50/50 split rather than the current 67% to Landlord and 33% to Tenant.



	5.
	All
defined terms shall have the same meanings as in the Lease, except as otherwise stated in this First Amendment.



	6.
	Except
as hereby amended, the Lease and all of the terms, covenants and conditions thereof shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. In the event of any conflict or
inconsistency between the terms and provisions of this First Amendment and the terms and provisions of the Lease, the terms and provisions of this First Amendment shall prevail. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands to this First Amendment as of the day and date first above written. 



	
Landlord	
 	

Tenant
	Sobrato Interests,	 	Affymetrix, Inc.,
	a California limited partnership	 	a California corporation
	

By:	
 	

/s/  JOHN M. SOBRATO      
	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  BARBARA A. CAULFIELD      
 Barbara A. Caulfield
	

Its:	
 	

General Partner	
 	

Its:	
 	

Exec. V.P. and General Counsel













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.25
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROCHELLE SILVER

, Appellant,

v.

BLAIR W. DIMITRO

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1773

[ July 18, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; James L. Martz , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016DR009066

.

Craig A. Boudreau, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Curt Sanchez and Nicole Nicolette Mace of the Law Offices of Curt

Sanchez, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 22.308 Project approval.

State and multicounty jurisdictional planning is a State and local prerogative. Federal agencies will be responsive to State rural development strategies and priorities. However, determination of eligibility and feasibility and final approval of individual projects involving Federal funds must remain with the Federal government consistent with the Act and implementing regulations.
#### § 29.99 Superseded certificate or sample.

When superseded under this subpart by an appeal certificate or an appeal sample, such superseded certificate or sample shall become null and void and shall not thereafter be used to represent the tobacco described therein. If the original and the copies of the old certificate were not delivered to the appeal inspector for cancellation, the appeal inspector shall notify such persons or firms as he may consider necessary to prevent fraudulent use of any such null and void certificate.
98-1505.

#### State ex rel. Beane v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 27.44 Invalidity of cotton class certificates.

Any cotton class certificate shall become invalid for use in the tender or delivery of the cotton covered thereby on a basis grade contract whenever such cotton shall be removed from the place of storage specified therein, except when it is handled and re-stored or transferred to a different place of storage and restored under the supervision of an exchange inspection agency or a supervisor of cotton inspection.

(90 Stat. 1841-1846; (7 U.S.C. 15b))

[22 FR 10926, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 26 FR 1657, Feb. 25, 1961; 42 FR 40677, Aug. 11, 1977]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:98cr126/LAC

 3:00cv483/LAC/MD

MICHAEL A. BLANKENSHIP,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 215) of the Court’s

Order denying his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Defendant asserts that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) because the government had

committed fraud when it contended that Defendant’s claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (June 26, 2000), could not be retroactively

applied to his case under section 2255 review. See Gonzalez v. Secretary for Dept. of

Corrections, 366 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Defendant’s contention, that his

conviction did not become final until after Apprendi was decided, and that the Court was

wrong to rule otherwise, does not implicate fraud. Moreover, contrary to Defendant’s

assertion, his conviction became final on April 13, 2000, when the Eleventh Circuit mandate

Case 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD Document 216 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:98cr126/LAC Page 2 of 2

was issued, which predates the Apprendi decision. See Hamm v. United States, 269 F.3d

1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2001). Defendant’s proper avenue for relief is the filing of a second

or successive motion under section 2255, which requires authorization from the Eleventh

Circuit. See Gonzalez, 366 F.3d at 1277.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 215) is DENIED.

ORDERED on this 7th day of September, 2005.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:98-cr-00126-LC-MD Document 216 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1 CEO/CFO Certification

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 (Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, on the date hereof, the undersigned President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NewBridge Capital, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 USC 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.302 and promulgated as 18 USC 1350 pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.    The Report referenced above has been read and reviewed by the undersigned.

2.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 5(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

3.    The Report referenced above does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to makes
      the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading.

4.    I acknowledge that the management of the Company is solely responsible for
      the fair presentation in the financial statements of the financial
      position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company in
      conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
      States of America.

Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other such financial
information included in the report, fairly present the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of and for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002.

Additionally, I acknowledge that the Company's Board of Directors and Management
are solely responsible for adopting sound accounting practices, establishing and
maintaining a system of internal control and preventing and detecting fraud. The
Company's system of internal accounting control is designed to assure, among
other items, that 1) recorded transactions are valid; 2) valid transactions are
recorded; and 3) transactions are recorded in the proper period in a timely
manner to produce financial statements which present fairly the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the
respective periods being presented.

/s/ Fred G. Luke
--------------------------------
Fred G. Luke
President
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Dated:  March 14, 2003