alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors
SAFLINK Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
(Nos. 333-74253 and 033-68832) on Form S-8, Registration Statement (Nos. 033-
62430, 333-75789, 333-23467, 333-01510, 333-58575, and 333-54084) of Form S-3
and Registration Statement (No. 333-68642) on Form S-1 of SAFLINK Corporation of
our report dated March 8, 2002, except as to Note 15, which is as of March 29,
2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SAFLINK Corporation and
subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and comprehensive
income (loss) and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in
the December 31, 2001, annual report on Form 10-K of SAFLINK Corporation.

Our report dated March 8, 2002, except as to Note 15 which is as of March 29,
2002, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that SAFLINK has suffered
recurring losses from operations and has a working capital deficit that raise
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The
consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

                                         /s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2002
EXHIBIT
32.2
  CERTIFICATE
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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew J. Hammer, Interim 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, to the best of
my knowledge:
 
 (1)
                the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and,
 (2)
                the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Dated:
      August 14, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Matthew
      J. HammerMatthew
      J. HammerInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Stephen J. Hawrysz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Test Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 12, 2006                                      /s/ Stephen J. Hawrysz   Stephen J. Hawrysz   *Chief Financial Officer*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00099

- CV

PBAC 507 Holdings, LLC , Appellant

v. ESA P Portfolio, LLC , Appellee

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 22

- 006521 , THE HONORABLE AURORA MARTINEZ

- JONES , JU DGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on May 2, 2023

. After this Court granted multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file its brief, the Court ordered a ppellant to
file its bri ef no later than August 30, 20 23, and advised counsel that no further extensions would be granted. Appellant’ s prior counsel filed a motion for withdrawal on August 25, 2023. Appellant’s newly substituted counsel filed a fifth motion, request i ng that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. In granting the most recent extension , th e Court ordered appellant to file its brief no later than September 29, 2023 , and advised it that no further extensions would be granted , even if fut u re changes of counsel were to occur
. To date, the brief has not been tendered for filing and is overdue. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Gi se la D. T riana , Justice2 Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Sm ith
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: October 10 , 2023
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      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 Annual Report of Hawk Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald E. Weinberg,
      Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      RONALD E. WEINBERG


Ronald
      E.
      Weinberg


*Chairman
      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President*





March
      23,
      2007








This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the
      knowledge standard contained in that statute, and not for any other
      purpose.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeuroMetrix, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 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.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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):



|                      |  |                                                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2009 |  | /s/ SHAI N. GOZANI, M.D., PH.D. Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer and President

---



QuickLinks
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 69

To prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases in the Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 18, 1999

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mr.

INHOFE, and Mr. GRASSLEY) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

RESOLUTION

To prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases

in the Senate.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. RULE OF THE SENATE PROHIBITING CONSID3 ERATION OF RETROACTIVE TAX INCREASES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Sen5 ate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, mo6 tion, or conference report, that includes a retroactive Fed7 eral income tax rate increase.

8 (b) DEFINITION.—In this resolution—

9 (1) the term ‘‘Federal income tax rate in10 crease’’ means any amendment to subsection (a),
2

•SRES 69 IS

1 (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b)

2 or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that

3 imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and there4 by increases the amount of tax imposed by any such

5 section; and

6 (2) a Federal income tax rate increase is retro7 active if it applies to a period beginning prior to the

8 enactment of the provision.

9 (c) SUPERMAJORITY WAIVER.—

10 (1) WAIVER.—The point of order in subsection

11 (a) may be waived or suspended only by the affirma12 tive vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen

13 and sworn.

14 (2) APPEALS.—An affirmative vote of three15 fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall

16 be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the

17 Chair on a point of order raised under subsection

18 (a).

19 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This resolution takes effect

20 on January 1, 1999.

Æ
#### LOUISIANA HOME BUILDERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Loretta Z. FONTENOT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 88-387.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 13, 1988.

John Blake Deshotels, Mamou, for plaintiff/appellee/mover.

Jarvis J. Claiborne, Opelousas, for defendant/appellant.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and YELYERTON, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS

GUIDRY, Judge.

The plaintiff-appellee, Louisiana Home Builders, Inc., moves to dismiss the suspen-sive appeal of the defendant-appellant, Loretta Z. Fontenot.

This case involves an eviction proceeding brought by the appellee on February 8, 1988. An amendment to the Rule to Evict was filed by the plaintiff on February 25, 1988. The appellant did not file an answer to the rule. Testimony was adduced at trial on March 2, 1988.

The trial court signed a judgment ordering appellant’s eviction and delivery of possession of the premises to the appellee on March 10, 1988. The appellant’s motion and order for a suspensive appeal was filed on March 11, 1988, and signed by the trial court on March 14, 1988. The suspensive appeal bond was not filed until March 17, 1988. Appellee then moved for dismissal of the suspensive appeal and alternatively for the appeal to be converted to a devolu-tive appeal.

LSA-C.C.P. art. 4735 provides:

> ART. 4735. APPEAL: BOND

> An appeal does not suspend execution of a judgment of eviction unless the defendant has answered the rule under oath, pleading an affirmative defense entitling him to retain possession of the premises, and the appeal has been applied for and the appeal bond filed within twenty-form hours after the rendition of the judgment of eviction. The amount of the suspen-sive appeal bond shall be determined by the court in an amount sufficient to protect the appellee against all such damage as he may sustain as a result of the appeal.

Defendant did not answer the rule under oath, pleading an affirmative defense. The record also reveals that the appeal bond was not filed within twenty-four (24) hours after the rendition of the judgment. As the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure for a suspensive appeal were not complied with, the appellant is not entitled to a suspensive appeal. *Ward-Steinman v. Karst,*446 So.2d 999 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). The jurisprudence, however, has held that a timely appeal, though dismissed as suspensive, must be maintained as a devolutive appeal. *Ward-Steinman*supra at 1001 citing *Aucoin v. Williams,*291 So.2d 504 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974). Since the appeal was taken one day after judgment, the appeal is timely.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as a suspensive appeal, but maintained as a de-volutive appeal.

SUSPENSIVE APPEAL DISMISSED AND MAINTAINED AS DEVOLUTIVE APPEAL.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas F. Helms, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of North Atlantic Holding
Company, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (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.



Dated: May 17, 2004



/S/    THOMAS F. HELMS, JR.Thomas F. Helms, Jr. Chief Executive
Officer
#### Neil FOLSE, Jr. v. Dr. R.C. BORDLEE, Dr. E. Rivet, St. Ann General Hospital, Dr. Rodrigo Salazar, Dr. William Nuessle, Dr. Mike Sweeney, Dr. Edward Chaisson, and South Louisiana Medical Center, State of Louisiana, Department of Health and Human Resources.

No. 86-C-2462.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Folse, Neil Jr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA/85/1115; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 76245.

Prior report; La.App., 498 So.2d 302.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph WALTERS v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden, Dixon.

No. 88-KH-1146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Walters, Joseph; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 01-88-884.

Granted. The district court is ordered to give immediate consideration to the petition transferred on April 29, 1988 in No. 88-KH-0993, 523 So.2d 1315.
#### McIntosh, Appellee, *v.*Doddy et al., Appellants.

(No. 31313

Decided March 10, 1948.)

*Mr. Loyal S. Martin,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Strasser, Shannon & Strasser,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart,. Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Zimmerman, J., not participating.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

Order 

October 22, 2014

149592-3 & (18)(19)

JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3,

JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6,

and JOHN DOE 7, on behalf of themselves 

and a class of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 149592-3

COA: 321013; 321756

Washtenaw CC: 13-001196-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

OF MDOC CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, FORMER DEPUTY

DIRECTOR OF MDOC CORRECTIONAL

FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION, CHIEF

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MDOC

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION, WARDEN OF CARSON

CITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN

OF CHARLES EGELER RECEPTION AND

GUIDANCE CENTER, WARDEN OF

EARNEST C. BROOKS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF GUS HARRISON

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN OF

RICHARD A. HANDLON CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF OAKS 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WARDEN OF

THUMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

WARDEN OF CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, WARDEN OF MARQUETTE

BRANCH PRISON, and WARDEN OF

BELLAMY CREEK CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 22, 2014

d1015

2

Clerk

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. The 

motion for stay is DENIED.
#### Dinah Sochet, as Executrix of Sol Sochet, Deceased, Plaintiff, *v.*Efthemia Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

February 4, 1959.

*Albert Weiss*for Mary Prodes, defendant.

*Abraham S. Brody*for plaintiff.

*Robert 8. Buttles*for Efthemia Corporation, defendant.

*670J. Irwin Shapiro, J.

The defendant Mary Prodes moves to open her default in appearing and answering in this real property mortgage foreclosure action, She is not the owner of the premises, nor did she execute the mortgage bond, and she was joined as a party defendant only to extinguish any rights she has or may claim to have as an occupying tenant of part of the premises.

She desires to answer the foreclosure complaint so that she can set up a defense *“*because of the fact that I am individually responsible on the additional collateral given to this plaintiff, in addition to the mortgage herein, in the event of the entry of a deficiency judgment against the corporation,”

It is admitted that “ Only judgment is sought in this foreclosure against the corporation ”, but it is contended that “ the entry thereof will entail proceedings against me personally for any deficiency.”

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. There may be no deficiency on the foreclosure sale, but if there is, and a suit is instituted against the moving defendant personally to recover such deficiency, she will then be in a position to assert any defenses she may have. This foreclosure action is not the vehicle for that purpose.

Motion denied. Stay vacated. Submit order.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William H. Joyce, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of Nalco Holdings LLC(‘‘Nalco’’) and Bradley J. Bell, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of Nalco, in conjunction with thefiling of Nalco’s 10-Q financial report (the‘‘Report’’) with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, covering the calendar quarter ending March  31,2006, hereby certify as follows:

|  |          |                                                                                            |
|--|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | a.  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | b.  | The information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations for Nalco. |

|        |  |                                                                                                             |  |  |  |  |
|--------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   |  | /s/ WILLIAM H. JOYCE                                                                                        |
|   |  | William H. JoyceChairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer Date:    May  10,  2006             |
|   |  | /s/BRADLEY J. BELL                                                                                          |
|   |  | Bradley J. BellExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:    May10,  2006 |
|        |

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald R. AILSWORTH v. Rudolph F. BECKER, III, Judge, Section “E”, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

No. 86-KH-2084.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Ailsworth, Ronald R.; applying for writ of review; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “E”, No. 273-282.

Denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,the undersigned officer of MPC Corporation. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|              | /s/ John P. Yeros                    |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------|
| November 14, 2007 | John P. Yeros                        |
|              | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----