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





Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)

and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a)

and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code), each

of the undersigned officers of The  L.S. Starrett Company,  a Massachusetts

corporation  (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's

knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 25, 2006 (the

"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section

13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information

contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the

financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  May 3, 2006                      /s/ Douglas A. Starrett

Douglas A. Starrett

Chief Executive Officer





Date:  May 3, 2006                      /s/ Randall J. Hylek

Randall J. Hylek

Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section

906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section

1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States Code) and is not being filed as

part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been

provided to The L.S. Starrett Company and will be retained by The L.S.

Starrett Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or

its staff upon request.
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-14-1998

Ingram v. Bucks County

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-1360

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ingram v. Bucks County" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 112.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/112
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 97-1360 

 INGRAM v. BUCKS COUNTY 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

opinion issued on 5/12/98 in the above-entitled appeal and will 

appear as part of the final version of the opinion:

 1. On Page 1, change the District Court Docket Number from 

D.C. Civ. No. 95-02122 to D.C. Civ. No. 96-02122. 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

Date: May 14, 1998
##### 



Exhibit 99.3 Annual Statement of Compliance and Related Information
First Republic Bank
2510 S. Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89109
702-792-5388 The undersigned servicing officer certifies the following to BWT Holdings:  1.
    
    I am an officer of the above-named institution, and I am authorized to
issue this Officers Certificate;2.
    
    All premiums for each Hazard Insurance Policy, Flood Insurance Policy (if
any) and FHA certificate of Mortgage Insurance (if any) with respect to each
Mortgage Loan and each Mortgaged Property have been paid and all such insurance
policies are in full force and effect;3.
    
    All accrued real estate taxes, governmental assessments and any other
expenses that if not paid could result in a lien or encumbrance on any Mortgaged
Property have been paid, or if any such costs or expenses have not been paid in
respect of any Mortgaged Property, the reason for the non-payment and the action the
Servicer will take to assure payment are documented and attached hereto;4.
    
    The officer signing this certificate has reviewed the activities and
performance of the Servicer during the preceding fiscal year under the Servicing
Agreement throughout such year, or, it there has been a default of failure of the
Servicer to perform any of such duties, responsibilities or obligations, a
description of each default or failure and the nature and status are
documented and attached
hereto:5.
    
    As to each FHA and VA Loan, the Servicer has fulfilled and complied with
all obligations and conditions to be fulfilled and complied with by mortgage
loan servicers under FHA Regulations and VA Regulations, respectively;6.
    
    This officer has confirmed that the Fidelity Bond and the Errors
and Omissions Insurance Policy are in full force and effect and meet the requirements
of the definitions of such terms;7.
    
    All inspections required by the Servicing Agreement have been made;8.
    
    The outstanding balance of the servicing portfolio of the Servicer at
fiscal year-end is $                   ; and9.
    
    All filings required by any taxing authority for any Mortgage Loan have
been completed and delivered as required by applicable law. Officer Signature  Nancy Segreto  Date 3-24-04 Name and Title
  Nancy Segreto   Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTONICS CO. LTD. and 

SAMSUNG ELECTONICS AMERICA, 

INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

The undersigned attorney files this Notice of Change of Address and requests that the 

Court’s docket in the above-styled cause be updated accordingly. 

My new address is as follows: 

Firm Graves & Shaw LLP 

Street 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450 

City, State, Zip Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone/Fax 213-204-5101 

Email gshaw@gravesshaw.com 

State Bar # CA 197960 (admitted pro hac vice) 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Greer N. Shaw 

The Change of Address Form should be completed and electronically filed in active case(s) 

only. For questions, please contact the help desk at: txwd_ecf_help@txwd.uscourts.gov 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above document was served 

on June 1, 2022 to all counsel of record via ECF. 

/s/ Greer N. Shaw 

Greer N. Shaw 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5277 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on D-Mannose. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. PASCRELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on D-Mannose. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. D-MANNOSE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.19 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 D-Mannose) is amended by striking the date in the effec7 tive period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Chandler-Learmont Cos. v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. , No. 214-5-14 Wmcv (Teachout, J., June 25, 2015)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is un official. It has been reformatted from the origina l. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial cou rt opinion database is not guaranteed.] STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Windham Unit Docket No. 214-5-14 Wmcv

Chandler-Learmont Companies and

Charles Chandler

Plaintiffs

v.

Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. and

Ronald Gifford

Defendants

DECISION

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

This is a duplicative lawsuit filed by Mr. Charles Chandler four days after the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s dismissal of th e predecessor lawsuit on comity grounds in

deference to the courts of Massachusetts where he h as the same subject matter pending against

the same defendants in an earlier filed case. See Chandler v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co. , No. 2014-030, 2014 WL 3714930 (Vt. Sup. Ct. May 9, 2014) (unpub.) . Defendants again have filed a motion to dismiss on comity grounds.

The only potentially significant difference between this lawsuit and th e previous one is that Mr. Chandler named the “Chandler-Learmont Comp anies” as a plaintiff or plaintiffs in this case. Mr. Chandler was the only named plaintiff in the prior suit. There is no dispute that the Massachusetts lawsuit that was pending at the time of the Vermont Supreme Court’s comity decision remains pending.

The Vermont Supreme Court described the comity rul e as follows:

As we have recognized, “principles of comity can pr ovide a [ ] . . . basis for nonintervention by a Vermont court in a dispute tha t has already come before some other forum.” The doctrine is designed to fos ter cooperation among the states, preclude forum-shopping, avoid multiple or inconsistent judgments, and promote judicial economy by allowing a court, in it s discretion, to stay or dismiss a proceeding “where an action concerning the same parties and the same subject matter has been commenced in another jurisdiction c apable of granting prompt and complete justice.”

Chandler , 2014 WL 3714930 *2 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, a disparity in the configuration of parties might counsel in favor of retaining jurisdiction over a later-filed case.In Mr. Chandler’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement, he

clarifies that the Chandler-Learmont Companies are “various Vermont companies” that he owns, controls, and represents, and that they are unincor porated. That Mr. Chandler may do business under different company names is insufficient to sh ow any meaningful difference in parties here

vis-à-vis the Massachusetts lawsuit.

Dismissal is the prudent course here as it was in the prior case.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to D ismiss is granted without prejudice.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this ____ day of June 2015.

_____________________________ Mary Miles Teachout, Superior Judge
#### CORNETT v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Sept. 26, 1952.

S. M. Ward, Hazard, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appeal is by Kinnerd Cornett from a conviction of child desertion with a penalty of imprisonment for two years.

Both the accusatory and the descriptive portions of the indictment mix the language of KRS 435.240(1), which makes it a felony for a parent to desert or abandon a child and leave it destitute, and the language of KRS 435.240(3), which makes it a felony for a parent, among other things, to fail to comply with a judgment in a divorce action which provides for the maintenance or support of a child. The references in the indictment to the failure to comply with a judgment, however, are not sufficient to state a charge under subsection (3) of the Statutes and must be considered as surplus-age. The remainder of the indictment seems to be good under KRS 435.240(1).

^ Subsection (1) of the statute, in substance and effect, has been the law for many years. An Act of 1946, which was quite like subsection (3), was held not to have been passed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and was, therefore, void. Commonwealth v. Scott, 310 Ky. 537, 221 S.W. 2d 64. In 1950, c. 181, the General Assembly enacted the present subsection (3) of KRS 435.240 as an amendment.

We reserve a decision as to the constitutionality of the act since it is not necessary.

*467The evidence is, in short, that the defendant abandoned his wife before the birth of his child and moved to another county. He was served with a summons in a divorce action but made no response. His defense in this prosecution was that he had no knowledge of the judgment which required him to pay $25 a month for the maintenance of the child.

The instructions follow the language of subsection (3) of the Statute and the evidence. The Attorney General concedes the error, for it is elementary that instructions should follow substantially the language of the indictment. Instructions to Juries, Stanley, Sec. 767. Since the indictment, properly construed, charged only the crime described in KRS 435.240(1), the instructions should have been in accord therewith.

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

|   | (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                            |                             |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                 | **Worldwide              Biotech & Pharmaceutical Company** |
|                            |                                                       |                        |
| Date: May              26, 2006 | By:                                                   | /s/ Peiyi              Tian |
|                                 |                                                                 |
|                                 | Principal              Accounting Officer                       |
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO 5:20-CV-00746-JKP

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

DEFENDANT DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S COUNTERCLAIMS

On this date came on to be considered Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra’s Unopposed Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. Sandra 

Guerra’s Counterclaims (Document ________). The Court has carefully considered the motion 

and finds that it should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra, to 

file her response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. Sandra Guerra’s Counterclaims 

(Document 21) is extended through and including November 27, 2020.

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: _________________________ _________________________________________

HENRY J. BEMPORAD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 23-1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 23-1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 19, 2009

d1112 

# Order

November 19, 2009

139006

MARILYN J. KIEFER and GEORGE KIEFER, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 139006 COA: 280769 Washtenaw CC: 05-001137-NH JOHN M. MARKLEY, M.D., and CENTER FOR PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , C.J., and C AVANAGH and H ATHAWAY , JJ., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion,
and remand this case to the Wa shtenaw Circuit Court for rein statement of the complaint.
EXHIBIT
32.2




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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of StockerYale, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy P. Losik,
Chief Operating Officer and 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 my 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.





/s/ Timothy P.
      LosikTimothy
      P. LosikChief
      Operating Officer and Chief Financial OfficerNovember
      20, 2009
# Transfer of Economic Support Funds, Peacekeeping Operations Funds, and Foreign Military Financing Funds to the International Organizations and Programs Account and Use of Funds to Provide a U.S. Contribution of $29,407,000 to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 610(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary for the purposes of the Act that:

be transferred to, and consolidated with, funds made available for chapter 3 of part I of the Act.

In addition, pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 614(a)(1) of the Act, I hereby determine that it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish up to:

Public Law 106-113

for assistance to KEDO without regard to any provision of law within the scope of section 614(a)(1) of the Act. I hereby authorize the furnishing of this assistance.

                    You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to arrange for its publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 00-25959

Billing code 4710-10-M
NATASHA MERIERI LOVOLD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5191

____________________________/

Opinion filed March 18, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Scott Duncan, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 4 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 17 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 18 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 19 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 20 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 21 of 22
Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 173-5 Filed 03/30/22 Page 22 of 22
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 JohnsonDiversey, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2009 |  | /s/ Edward F. Lonergan                              
|                     |  | Edward F. Lonergan                                  
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                     | 
|                     |  | /s/ Joseph F. Smorada                               
|                     |  | Joseph F. Smorada                                   
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.