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

| 1.   | the              Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2005              (the “Form              10-K”),              fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the              Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));              and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the              information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the              Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                                                   |                                                  |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:                March 10, 2006 | By:                                                          | /s/ John                R.                Valaas |
|                                | John                R. Valaas                                          |
|                                | President                  andChief                  Executive Officer |

|   |                                                                                                         |                                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:                                                                                                | /s/ Roger                  A.                  Mandery |
|   | Roger                  A. Mandery                                                                            |
|   | Executive                    Vice President andChief                    Financial                    Officer |
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

 On October 20, 2005, plaintiff alleging that he has been placed in administrative 1

segregation in retaliation for this lawsuit and seeking an order requiring prison officials to

immediately release him from administrative segregation. Plaintiff contends that in the absence

of the requested order he will be unable to timely file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has

not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to this claim, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and it is

therefore not properly before the court. Plaintiff’s request will be denied. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL E. DIAZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2375 MCE JFM P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed September 20, 2005, plaintiff’s amended complaint was

dismissed and plaintiff was given thirty days to file a second amended complaint. On October

21, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time until December 15, 2005 to file the

second amended complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request will be granted.1

On the same day, plaintiff filed a document styled “Motion for Emergency TRO

and Injunction.” As plaintiff was advised in this court’s September 20, 2005 and October 24,

2005, orders, the court will not entertain any motion for injunctive relief unless and until plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02073-DFL -JFM Document 11 Filed 10/26/05 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

has filed a proper complaint on which this action can proceeding. Plaintiff’s motion will be

denied without prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 20, 2005 request for court-ordered release from

administrative segregation is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; 

3. Plaintiff is granted until December 15, 2005 in which to file a second amended

complaint; and

4. Plaintiff’s October 21, 2005 motion for injunctive relief is denied without

prejudice. 

DATED: October 25, 2005. 

12

diaz2375.o2

Case 2:04-cv-02073-DFL -JFM Document 11 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Motorvehicle use map. Colville National Forest, southeast area, Washington /**
 
2011 | 2013| 2016
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28: C 72/8/SOUTHE./
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000906218
 
July 2, 2018
Exhibit 10.32


 


AMENDMENT TO


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made to be effective the 16th day of March, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and between Image Sensing Systems, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the “Borrower”) and Alliance Bank, a Minnesota banking corporation, its successors and/or assigns (the “Lender”).


 


The Lender is the owner and holder of a revolving line of credit Promissory Note dated effective May 12, 2014, from the Borrower in the original principal amount of $5,000,000.00 (the “Note”), which Note was issued pursuant to that certain Commitment Letter dated effective May 12, 2014, as amended by that certain Amendment to Commitment Letter of even Effective Date herewith by and between the Lender and the Borrower (collectively, the “Commitment Letter”).


 


Pursuant to the Commitment Letter, as amended, the Borrower and the Lender have agreed, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, to amend the Note as hereinafter set forth.


 


As of the Effective Date of this Amendment, it is agreed that all references to the term “Maturity Date” in the Note shall now mean April 1, 2016.


 


Except as amended by this Amendment, the Note, and all other terms of the Note, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the Effective Date first above written.





	 	 	 	 	 
	LENDER:	 	BORROWER:
	 	 	 	 	 
	Alliance Bank	 	Image Sensing Systems, Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ R. Scott Johnson	 	
By: 

	/s/ Dale E. Parker
	 	R. Scott Johnson	 	 	Dale E. Parker
	 	Its Vice President	 	 	Its Interim President/CEO
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-1643

ROBERT HOWARD,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

SUSAN ANTILLA,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 28, 2002, is amended

as follows:

On the cover page, replace: 

"Robert A. Bertsche, Zick Rubin, Stuart Svonkin and Hill & Barlow

were on brief, for amici curiae in support of appellant." 

with: 

"Robert A. Bertsche, Zick Rubin, Stuart Svonkin and Hill & Barlow

were on brief, for ABC, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., CBS Broadcasting,

Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., The National Broadcasting Co.,

Inc., NYP Holdings, Inc., Time Inc., Ziff Davis Media, Inc., The

Association of American Publishers, Inc., and The Newspaper

Association of America, Inc., amici curiae."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF SC

v. BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION FEE REVIEW HEARING OFFICE (THE PHYSICAL THERAPY INSTITUTE) PETITION OF: THE PHYSICAL THERAPY INSTITUTE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 136 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joyce Carpenter, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1002]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered March 21, 1994, convicting her of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it *356was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, including issues involving eyewitness identification testimony, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Caban,*120 AD2d 603). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
No. 42932.

#### Protests 6738-K, etc., of Lanz of Salzburg et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60592 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TESLIM OLAREWAJU KIRIJI,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from th e United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:14

- CR

- 33

- 2

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Teslim Olarewaju Kiriji appeals his sentence of 240 months of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) and (h). He argues that the Government breached its promise in the plea ag reement to recommend a sentence within the lower 25% of the applicable guideline range, and he also

1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 25, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60592 Document: 00513652735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2016No. 15

- 60592

2 argues that the district court erred in calculating his offense level. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the waiver in the plea agreement of Kiriji’s right to appeal his sentence on any ground. Kiriji argues that the waiver is unenforceable because of the alleged breach and because he did not knowingly agree to it insofar as he did not know at the time of his guilty plea that the district court would commit the specific sentencing errors he now alleges. Although “an alleged breach of a plea agreement may be raised despite a waiver provision,” United States v. Roberts , 624 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 20 10), our review of the record shows that the Government did not breach the agreement as its conduct was not clearly or obviously inconsistent with a reasonable understanding of its obligations, United States v. Cantu , 185 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 133

- 38 (2009) (holding that the plain error standard governs a claim of breach first raised on appeal). Also, the record shows that Kiriji understood the possible penalties for his offense and that he knew that he had a right to appeal his sentence and was gi ving up that right. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567

- 68 (5th Cir. 1992); see also F ED

. R. C RIM . P. 11(b)(1)(N). Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. Case: 15-60592 Document: 00513652735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2016
EXHIBIT 32.2

    Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Metalink Ltd. (the
"Company") for the period ending December 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Ofer
Lavie, 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.

Date: August 29, 2003

/s/_Ofer Lavie___
Ofer Lavie
Chief Financial 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
required by Section 906, has been provided to Metalink Ltd. and will be retained
by Metalink Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William D. Eglin, Chief Financial Officer of MD Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD
Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD Technologies Inc.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                   |  | William D. Eglin       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

126 

CA 13-00316 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DARYL KNICKERBOCKER, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark

H. Dadd, A.J.), entered September 20, 2012 in a CPLR article 78

proceeding. The judgment denied the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Matter of Robles v Evans, 100 AD3d 1455, 1455).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-               Reports Publications          

# Reports - Semiannual Reports

March 31, 2024

FDIC Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2023 - March 31, 2024

OIG Semiannual Report to Congress Spring 2024_0.pdf

September 30, 2023

FDIC Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2023-September 30, 2023

OIG_Semiannual Report -0423-0923.pdf

March 31, 2023

Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2022-March 31, 2023

OIG_Final Spring 2023.pdf

September 30, 2022

FDIC Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2022 - September 30, 2022

OIG_Semiannual_0422-0922_0.pdf

March 31, 2022

Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2021-March 31, 2022

OIG_Semiannual1021-0322.pdf

September 30, 2021

FDIC Office of Inspector General, Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2021 – September 30, 2021

OIG_Semiannual_Report_0421-0921 (1) (1).pdf

March 31, 2021

Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2020 -March 31, 2021

OIG_Semiannual_1020-0321_0.pdf

September 30, 2020

Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2020 - September 30, 2020

Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2020 - September 30, 2020

March 31, 2020

Semiannual Report to the Congress October 1, 2019–March 31, 2020

Semiannual Report to the Congress October 1, 2019–March 31, 2020

September 30, 2019

Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1, 2019-September 30, 2019

Semiannual Report to the Congress

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-              4           
-   Next  

## Filter Options
EXHIBIT 13.2

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Yuval Ruhama, Chief Financial
Officer, certify that:

     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 Company.

Date: June 25, 2006

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

                                                         Yuval Ruhama
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
No. 63163.

#### King Shipping Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/19300 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 09, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 09, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0219. DARRELL BROWN v. EDWARD D. LUKEMIRE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

NONE
No. 59604.

protest 260680-K (New York).

#### Accurate Millinery Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### Isabella Bonilla et al., Appellants, v Ramon Monrose, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1015]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated July 14, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) for lack of prosecution and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion to compel the defendant to accept service of the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered July 22, 1994, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

To defeat the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiffs should have offered a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve their complaint and should have shown that they had a meritorious action by furnishing a sworn statement from a person having personal knowledge of the facts *(see, Innerarity v County of Westchester,*144 AD2d 645). The plaintiffs failed to comply with either requirement. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Ian T. Bothwell, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrantand have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) 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; andc) 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 registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) 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.   Date: August 20, 2007       /s/ Ian T. Bothwell     Ian T. Bothwell