alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Serena Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Jeremy Burton, Chief Executive Officer of Serena Software, Inc. certify that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Serena Software, Inc. at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JEREMY BURTONJeremy Burton President and Chief Executive Officer And Director


Date: September 12, 2008

This Certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Zion Tsabbar, D.D.S., P. C., Appellant, v Solomon Hirsch et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 651]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered August 10, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs causes of action for negligence, conversion and replevin, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs cause of action for negligence was properly dismissed for lack of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the perpetrator of the arson was an intruder who gained access to plaintiffs office through a negligently maintained building entrance *(see, Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp.,*92 NY2d 544, 552; *Bennett v Twin Parks Northeast Houses,*93 NY2d 860). Plaintiffs contention that the arsonist was an intruder, which is based on prior complaints about loitering and vandalism in the building, is speculative, given that there were no witnesses to the arson, that the authorities could not gain entry to the building through its front door at the time of the fire, and that there is no evidence of forced entry to the building or plaintiffs suite *(cf, Cisse v S.F.J. Realty Corp.,*256 AD2d 257). The cause of action for conversion was properly dismissed based on evidence establishing that plaintiffs insurer was insisting that the site remain intact *92during the investigation and that defendants never claimed or exercised dominion and control over plaintiffs property in the burned-out office. The cause of action for replevin was properly dismissed on the ground that none of the defendants continue to own or manage the premises. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs argument that the motions for summary judgment were untimely. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-960-1910-BJ-4377; ES-50671, Group 154, Minnesota] 

The plat of the dependent resurvey of portions of the south, east and north boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines, the survey of the subdivision of sections 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9 through 21, 23 through 28, and 30 through 36, the reestablishment of the record meander line in sections 2, 3, 4, 11, 18, 23 and 34, and the metes-and-bounds survey in section 34, Township 143 North, Range 39 West, 5th Principal Meridian, Minnesota, will be officially filed in Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia at 7:30 a.m., on June 19, 2000. 

The survey was requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the survey must be sent to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, prior to 7:30 a.m., June 19, 2000. 

Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the appropriate fee. 

Dated: May 4, 2000. 

Stephen G. Kopach, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 00-12479 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### CALDWELL v EGER et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 7956.

Decided November 25, 1929

Messrs. Vickery & Vickery, Cleveland, for Caldwell.

Messrs. Howell, Roberts, & Duncan, Cleveland, for Eger et.

MIDDLETON. P. J. & MAUCK, J. (4th Dist) and HOUCK, J. (5th Dist) sitting

MIDDLETON, PJ.

It is said in 16 R. C. L., Section 588, page 1067:

> “It is the well settled general rule that the duties and' liabilities of a landlord to persons on the leased premises by the license of the tenant are the same as those owed to the tenant himself. For this purpose they stand in his shoes. Visitors, customers, servants, employes and licensees in general of the tenant are on the premises as guests, etc., of the tenant and not of the landlord. Whatever rights such invitation or license from the lessee may confer, as against such lessee, as against the lessor it can give no greater rights than the lessee himself has. The guest, servant, etc., of the tenant is usually held to be so identified with the tenant that this right of recovery for injury as against the landlord is the same as that of the tenant would be had he suffered *he injury.”

This text is supported by many authorities cited in the note under the section quoted.

The defect which caused the injury to the plaintiff in error was in the construction of the stairway on which she was injured, and this defect was- open and obvious to any-one who might have occasion to use the stairway, and there is no evidence tending to show that Miller ever promised Saxton to remedy or repair it.

It is said in Burdick vs. Cheadle, 26 OS. 393:

> “The general rule of law undoubtedly is that persons who claim damages on the account that they were invited into a dangerous place, in which they receive injuries, mufst seek their remedy against the person who invited them. There is nothing in the relation of landlord and tenant which changes this rule. There is no implied engagement or promise on the part of the lessor that the leased premises are in a safe condition or that they are fit for the use to which the lessee intends to put them.- If they be unsafe or unfit it is the duty of the tenant to make them safe or to fit them for the intended use,' and the landlord' may reasonably expect that the tenant will do so. And if the landlord warrants their fitness the covenant stands for the benefit of the lessee and ..not for the benefit of strangers to the contract.”

We conclude that under the authority quoted the trial court was correct in directing a verdict for Miller in this case and the judgment is affirmed.

Houck and Mauck, JJ„ concur.
#### § 1917.15 Coopering.

Repair and reconditioning of damaged or leaking cargo packaging (coopering) shall be performed so as not to endanger employees.
§ 1980.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part implements procedures under section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley or Act), enacted into law July 30, 2002, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, enacted into law July 21, 2010. Sarbanes-Oxley provides for employee protection from retaliation by companies, their subsidiaries and affiliates, officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and agents because the employee has engaged in protected activity pertaining to a violation or alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, or any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. Sarbanes-Oxley also provides for employee protection from retaliation by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, their officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors or agents because the employee has engaged in protected activity.
( b ) This part establishes procedures pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley for the expeditious handling of retaliation complaints made by employees, or by persons acting on their behalf and sets forth the Secretary's interpretations of the Act on certain statutory issues. These rules, together with those codified at 29 CFR part 18, set forth the procedures for submission of complaints under Sarbanes-Oxley, investigations, issuance of findings and preliminary orders, objections to findings and orders, litigation before administrative law judges, post-hearing administrative review, withdrawals, and settlements.
Reggie

Vegetal

Food and Nutrition Service Vegetales

Palabras de 

vocabulario: 

yo, tener
Este libro pertenece a:
Yo tengo zanahorias.
Yo tengo maíz.
Yo tengo guisantes.
Yo tengo tomates.
Yo tengo frijoles.
Yo tengo brócoli.
Yo tengo lechuga.
Yo tengo una ensalada. ¡Rico!

Descubre otros materiales 

de educación nutricional 

desarrollados bajo la iniciativa 

de Team Nutrition del 

Departamento de Agricultura 

de los Estados Unidos en: 

https://teamnutrition.usda.gov.

Mayo 2018 · FNS474D-S

USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidades.
§ 2570.98 Decision of the administrative law judge. For 502(c)(5) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of 29 CFR 18.57. ( a ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and order.* Within twenty (20) days of the filing of the transcript of the testimony or such additional time as the administrative law judge may allow, each party may file with the administrative law judge, subject to the judge's discretion, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order together with a supporting brief expressing the reasons for such proposals. Such proposals and briefs shall be served on all parties, and shall refer to all portions of the record and to all authorities relied upon in support of each proposal.
( b ) *Decision of the administrative law judge.* Within a reasonable time after the time allowed for the filing of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, or within thirty (30) days after receipt of an agreement containing consent findings and an order disposing of the disputed matter in whole, the administrative law judge shall make his or her decision. The decision of the administrative law judge shall include findings of fact and conclusions of law with reasons therefor upon each material issue of fact or law presented on the record. The decision of the administrative law judge shall be based upon the whole record. In a contested case in which the Department and the Respondent have presented their positions to the administrative law judge pursuant to the procedures for 502(c)(5) civil penalty proceedings as set forth in this subpart, the penalty (if any) which may be included in the decision of the administrative law judge shall be limited to the penalty expressly provided for in section 502(c)(5) of ERISA. It shall be supported by reliable and probative evidence. The decision of the administrative law judge shall become a final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704 unless an appeal is made pursuant to the procedures set forth in §§ 2570.99 through 2570.101.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 43 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 43

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 3, 2007

   Mr. Reid submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate, and a 
        conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, 
August 3, 2007, through Friday, August 31, 2007, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Tuesday, 
September 4, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
by its majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, August 3, 2007, 
through Wednesday, August 8, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The majority leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
798 A.2d 160

#### Samuel BROWN, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee.

No. 48 EAP 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 11, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2002, probable jurisdiction is noted and the order appealed is affirmed.
#### PEOPLE *v.*GATEWOOD.

1. Appeal and Error — Criminal Law — Breaking and Entering in the Nighttime — Motion for New Trial — Availability of Transcript — Settled Record.

Denial of motion for new trial in criminal case where defend- . , ant was convicted of and sentenced for the offense of breaking and entering in the nighttime, where the motion was based on the ground that the trial transcript was unavailable to the defendant, *held,*not an abuse of discretion, where record shows no attempt on part of defendant to compile a settled reeord (CL 1948, § 750.110; GCR 1963, 812.2[b]).

2. New Trial — Court Rules — Stenographic Record — Settled Record.

Court rules, require that where no stenographic record of proceedings in trial court are available to one seeking a new trial, a settled record *shall*be used in lieu thereof (GCR 1963, 812-.2[b]).

References for Points in Headnotes

[1, 2] 4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 411 *et seq.*

*471Appeal from Genesee; McGregor (Lonis D.) and Papp (Elza), JJ.

Submitted Division 2 November 9, 1966, at Lansing.

(Docket No. 1,554.')

Decided December 22, 1966.

Charles Gatewood was convicted of breaking and entering in the nighttime. Motion for new trial denied. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Robert F. Leonard,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *Edward G. Eenneke,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*A. Glenn Epps,*for defendant.

Quinn, P. J.

January 16, 1964, defendant was convicted by jury verdict of the offense of breaking and entering in the nighttime in violation of CL 1948, § 750.110 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.305). March 17, 1964, defendant was sentenced to prison for a term of 7-1/2 to 15 years. Appellate counsel was appointed November 12, 1964, and February 10, 1965, the trial court ordered transcription of the trial testimony. The court reporter who took such testimony died February 7, 1965, and although his notes are available, it is claimed no one can transcribe them. On this basis, defendant moved the trial court for leave to file a motion for a new trial which was denied September 7, 1965. On leave granted, defendant appeals.

The precise question for decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, which motion was based on the sole ground of alleged unavailability of the trial transcript.

*472
      *GCR*1963, 812.2(b) provides in part:

> “Where there is no stenographic record of the proceedings in the trial court, a settled record *shall*be used in lieu thereof as provided in rule 705.”

There is no showing of an attempt to comply with this rule by defendant. The trial judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense counsel in the person of appellate counsel are all available to provide a settled record. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.

Affirmed.

Fitzgerald and T. Gr. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RICHARD A. MCGEE, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent.

____________________

2009-3263

______________________
Appeal from the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH0752080403-I-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

L AWRENCE J. F LEMING , Herzog Crebs, of St. Louis, Missouri, argued for petitioner.

R ENEE G ERBER , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and D ONALD E.
K INNER , Assistant Director.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM ( R ADER
, Chief Judge, P ROST and M OORE
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 12, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
§ 403.1 Fiscal year for reports required by this part. ( a ) As used in this part, unless otherwise defined, the term *fiscal year* means the calendar year or other period of 12 consecutive calendar months, on the basis of which financial accounts are kept by a labor organization reporting under this part. Where a labor organization designates a new fiscal year period prior to the expiration of a previously established fiscal year period, the resultant period of less than 12 consecutive calendar months, and thereafter the newly established fiscal year, shall in that order each constitute a fiscal year for purposes of the report required to be filed by section 201(b) of the Act, and of the regulations in this part.
( b ) A labor organization which is subject to section 201(b) of the Act for only a portion of its fiscal year because the labor organization first becomes subject to the Act during such fiscal year, may consider such portion as the entire fiscal year in making its report under this part.
[28 FR 14383, Dec. 27, 1963, as amended at 42 FR 59070, Nov. 15, 1977]
#### MIGLIORERO v D'ISA

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Oct 17, 1930

R. J. Parillo, Youngstown, for Miglior*739ero.

F. P. Anzelloti, Youngstown, for DTsa.

MAUCK, J(4th Dist) sitting in place of POLLOCK, J.

MAUCK, J.

Mrs. Russo did not perform under the first contract, and the plaintiff never secured title to the property involved. This was due to no fault of DTsa, and while the plaintiff now complains of that situation, he never in fact made an effort to compel Mrs. Russo, for while it appears that there was in fact a belated action for specific performance filed in his name, plaintiff testifies that he was never anxious to have the transaction go forward and he never authorized the filing of that suit. However this was, the plaintiff did not acquire pjnoo pue 70U pip Auuonbosuoo pue ‘oiq.iq. not have performed under his second contract, which bound him to give DTsa the exclusive opportunity of making a re-sale. It is clear that DTsa had an absolute right to the five hundred dollars received by him on the first contract. Under the second contract, which must be read with the first to ascertain the relation and rights of the parties, the plaintiff can not recover because he has not performed nor has he shown any excuse for non-performance. He paid the two hundred dollars under the second contract to DTsa, because he thereby acquired the right to have DTsa repay him the whole five hundred dollars which DTsa had already received and to get D’lsa’s renunciation of the five hundred dollars still unpaid. This was a fair bargain and the plaintiff had to perform before he could enjoy its benefit. In brief, the case is in this anomalous condition: The plaintiff is attempting to recover upon a contract under which he has not performed against a defendant who has in no way breached this contract.

The judgment is affirmed.

Roberts and Farr, JJ, concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 14-430

________________________________________________________________________

TAXATION

Information Exchange

Agreement Between

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and COLOMBIA

Signed at Bogota March 30, 2001
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof

or authentication thereof.”
 COLOMBIA

Taxation: Information Exchange

 Agreement signed at Bogota March 30, 2001;

 Entered into force April 30, 2014.