alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On November 23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and

which contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed

objections on December 2, 2005, and they were considered by the

District Judge.

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed

findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business

Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455

U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of

GLEN CALDWELL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 20 Filed 12/13/05 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 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 2

CIV-S-04-2693 RRB GGH PS

fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its

correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The

Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See

Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th

Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards

and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to

adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. The

Motion to Dismiss should be granted both on procedural grounds and

for the substantive reasons argued by Defendants.

Furthermore, the Court notes that Plaintiff has

significant experience with the court system and the local rules of

procedure having filed several cases in this District within the

past five years.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed

November 23, 2005, are ADOPTED; and

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2005.

_____/s/________________________

RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02693-RRB -GGH Document 20 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.44

February 15, 2001

Kenneth G. Preston
Associated Vice President for Research
University of South Florida Research Foundation
Tampa, Florida 33620

Dear Ken:

     It was good to speak with you. As we discussed, I would like to renew the
Alliance Agreement between UTEK and USF, which expired January 30, 2001. I
believe the renewal of this agreement is mutually beneficial.

     I look forward to continue working with you and the USF team to help bring
USF intellectual property to the market place.

     If you agree to extend the Agreement from February 1, 2001 until February
1, 2004 under the exact same terms outlined in our Agreement dated January 30,
1998. Please sign below and fax back to me at 813-754-2383.

     I have attached a prior copy of our agreement for your reference.

Very best regards,

Clifford M. Gross, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer

Enclosure

Agreed: ____________
        Kenneth G. Preston
       Associate VP for Research
Case No. 13,814.

#### TEASDALE v. JORDAN.

[Brunner. Cel. Cas. 19; 1

2 Hayw. N. C. 281.]

Circuit Court, D. North Carolina.

June Term, 1803.

Pleading at Law — Administrator—Failure op Assets.

An administrator may be permitted to amend by adding a plea where judgments have been obtained to the amount of the assets in his hands since he first pleaded.

[See Case No. 13,813.]

This case being called for trial Woods moved to aid a plea and stated that since the defendant [Jordan, administrator in right -of the -wife, of Brandon] pleaded, judgments had been obtained against him to the amount of the assets in his hands.

And by

MARSHALL, Circuit Justice

(to which POTTER, District Judge, assented): It is in the discretion of the court to permit the addition of a plea at any time before the trial; and the court will admit the plea where the justice of the ease requires it. And the plea now offered is such an one as justice requires the admission of. It would be a monstrous position that when judgments, after plea, had taken away all the assets, the executor or administrator should, notwithstanding, be compelled to answer the debts first pleaded to.

The plea was added.
No. 40226.

#### Protests 743877-G, etc., of Kwosang Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, wooden stands were held dutiable at 335⁄8 percent under paragraph 412. *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) followed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

Douglas C. Wride,Chief Financial Officer of Websense, Inc., hereby certifies pursuant tothe requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.                The Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Websense, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Exchange Act and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Websense, Inc.for the period covered by the Annual Report.

| Dated: February 28, 2007 |   |                      |
|-------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                          | By:    | /s/ DOUGLAS C. WRIDE      |   |
|                          |   | Douglas C. Wride          |
|                          |   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

----

*                    A signedoriginal of this written statement has been provided to Websense, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which itrelates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, andis not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Websense, Inc.under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Gary Sidorsky, certify that:

 

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of American Defense Systems, Inc.;

 

     2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

     4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

          (a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

          (b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

          (c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

     5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

          (a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

          (b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  November 14,2008

 

 
|   | /s/ Gary Sidorsky        |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Gary Sidorsky            |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 29, 2011 |   | By:   | /s/ Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.     |
|---------------------------------|--------|-----------------|---------------------------------------|
|                            |   |            | Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.         |
|                            |   |            | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

----
No. 41845.

#### Protest 906152-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cloth brushes and hat brushes similar to those passed upon in *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). They were therefore held dutiable at only 50 percent under paragraph 1506 as claimed.
No. 57363.

protest 191123-K (Philadelphia).

#### H. S. Dorf & Co. of Pa., Inc., and Agents Galsworthy, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An inspection of the official papers disclosed that the ■entry was liquidated on August 1, 1947, and the protest was filed on December 11, 1947. The court, therefore, held that the protest was properly dismissed.
No. 46156.

#### Protests 974196-G, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 47442.

#### Protest 922598-G of Sears, Roebuck & Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The claim at *f4o*of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 331 was sustained in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
#### Missouri Alderman v. City of New Smyrna Beach, a municipal corporation.

180 So. 516.

Division B.

Opinion Filed April 14, 1938.

*M. S. McGregor,*for Appellant;

*Hull, Landis, & Whitehair',*for Appellee.

Chapman, J.

This cause is before the Court on an appeal from an order made by Honorable H. B. Frederick, a *75Judge of the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, dated February 12, 1938, directing the issuance of a writ of assistance by the Clerk of said Court for the possession of certain lands therein described. An examination of the record shows that the final decree upon which the writ of assistance is based is dated November 1, 1937, each of which weix duly recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida.

Counsel for appellee' has filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal and in support thereof cites the case of Wiley v. Hoggson, 89 Fla. 446, text 452, 105 So. 126, where it was said:

“Where an appeal is taken from an interlocutory order *after*a final decree has been rendered in the cause, and no appeal is taken from the final decree, the appellate court will dismiss the appeal taken solely from the interlocutory order. Oneida Land Co. v. Richards, 72 Fla. 116, 72 South. Rep. 646. This is done not because of want of jurisdiction in the appellate court, but because *non constat*the error if any in the interlocutory order appealed from had been cured or rendered immaterial by the final decree rendered *before*the appeal from the interlocutory order was taken, and because the *appelJant*is at fault in bringing to the appellate court only a portion of the cause by an appeal taken after the whole cause had already been adjudicated and disposed of by final decree.”

We are at a loss to understand why the appeal was not taken from the final decree so as to permit this court to review the entire cause in its effort to do substantial justice. It appears that the motion to dismiss the appeal is supported by previous decisions of this Court and well taken. The motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby granted.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.

*76Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in . the opinion and judgment.
#### Samuel A. Avila, Respondent, *v.*William Lockwood and Emory W. McClintock, *Appellants.*

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.; Dtkman, J., not sitting.
No. 61931.

#### Max Seidman *v.*United States,

protest 140548-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fox skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388) or *Sam Forwand Co.*v. *United Stales*(37 Cust. Ct. 232, C. D. 1829), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 September 30, 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: November 13, 2006 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                        |  | William D. Eglin       
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
EX 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, John Rudy , certify that:



1.I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.;



2.Based on my knowledge, this amended report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this amended  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this amended  report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this amended report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





April 22, 2008



/s/   John Rudy

________________________

John Rudy

Chief Financial Officer
No. 44063.

#### Protest 969997-G of American Paulin System (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the face of the dial of the sample in question, in addition to calibrations for reading atmospheric pressure in degrees, there appear other calibrations for reading altitude measurements in feet, and the words “Surveying Aneroid” appear on the face of the instrument. It was held that although there is some conflict as to whether these aneroid barometers are chiefly used by surveyors, the fact that they are silver plated would preclude their classification under paragraph 360. The claim at 27)4 percent under paragraph. 372 was sustained on the authority of *United States*v. *Oppleman*(25 C. C. P. A. 168, T. D. 49271).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            I, Klaus Moeller, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify
pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
that:

            (1) the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant
for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), to which this statement
is filed as an exhibit, 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.

Dated:  April 29, 2004             By:    /S/ KLAUS MOELLER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Klaus Moeller
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Interim
                                          Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                          financial officer)
(Reap. Dec. 8463)

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States

Entry No. 375.

(Decided July 14, 1955)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the value of the silk habutae scarfs covered by the appeal to reap-praisement noted above is US $2.43 per doz., net packed, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the silk habutae scarfs here involved, and that such value was United States dollars 2.43 per dozen, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Defense
Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), Anthony
Piscitelli, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Company and
Gary Sidorsky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to our best knowledge:




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 23, 2010
                    By:
                    /s/
      Anthony PiscitelliAnthony
      PiscitelliChief
      Executive Officer, President and ChairmanBy:
                    /s/
      Gary SidorskyGary
      SidorskyChief
      Financial
Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00774

- CR

Delfino LOPEZ Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CRN001126 D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale Jr.

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 27 , 2018.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice