alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

of

Periodic Financial Report

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

I, John G. Drosdick, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Sunoco, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008 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 the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sunoco, Inc.



|                     |  |                          
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2008 |  | /s/ John G. Drosdick     
|                     |  | John G. Drosdick         
|                     |  | Chairman, Chief Executive
|                     |  | Officer and President
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Annual Report of Kronos International, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Robert D. Hardy,
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.




/s/  Robert D. Hardy
----------------------------
     Robert D. Hardy
     Chief Financial Officer

March 26, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Kronos  International,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Kronos
International,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY JAMES AYERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00018) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: December 27, 2006 Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Davis, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, William F. Gould, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jeffrey James Ayers appeals the twelve-month sentence imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. He challenges the supervised release revocation in the first instance and asserts that the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. We affirm. Ayers first asserts that the district court erred by revoking his supervised release. At the revocation hearing, however, Ayers admitted that he had used cocaine. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release. SeeUnited States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642- 43 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating standard of review). Ayers also asserts that the district court should have modified his term of supervised release to include drug treatment and that the court plainly erred by imposing an additional term of supervised release. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in imposing an additional term of supervised release. We also note that, although the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed , __ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. Nov. 3, 2006) (No. 06-7631), to guide its imposition of Ayers’ revocation sentence, we conclude that Ayers’ sentence is not plainly unreasonable.- 3 - Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             964
<SECURITIES>                                    28,638
<RECEIVABLES>                                      961
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (48)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,586
<PP&E>                                           3,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,680)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,842
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,190
<SALES>                                          4,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,917
<CGS>                                           80,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,792)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,792)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

----

March 4, 2011 

MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.     One Bryant Park 3rd Floor – Structured Credit Trading    New York, NY10036 

PREFERREDPLUS, PPLUSTRUST AND INDEXPLUS CERTIFICATE 

The undersigned, Maryann Joseph,Vice President of The Bank of New York Mellon  (formerly The Bank of New York), a New York corporation  (the “Trustee”), herebycertifies in such capacity that, based on her knowledge, the Trustee has complied, in allmaterial respects, with all conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under theStandard Terms for Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill LynchDepositor, Inc. as depositor (the “Depositor”) and the Trustee, as successor to UnitedStates Trust Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the “SecuritiesIntermediary”), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the Depositor, theTrustee and the Securities Intermediary for each trust series listed in the attachedschedule.
|   |                                                                                                          |   |           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|--------|
|   | Very truly yours,The Bank of New York Mellon (formerlyThe Bank of New York), as Trustee                  |   |
|   | By:                                                                                                 | /s/    | Maryann Joseph |   |
|   |                                                                                                          | Name:  | Maryann Joseph |   |
|   |                                                                                                          | Title: | Vice President |   |
|   |  |   |
|--------|--|--------|

----

SCHEDULE 

INDEXPLUS Trust Series 2003-1     PPLUSTrust Series CMT-1     PPLUS Trust Series CSF-1    PPLUS Trust SeriesDCNA-1     PPLUS Trust Series FMC-1     PPLUS Trust Series GSC-1     PPLUS Trust Series GSC-2     PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1     PPLUS Trust Series GSG-2    PPLUS Trust SeriesJPM-1     PPLUS Trust Series LMG-3     PPLUS Trust Series SPR-1     PPLUSTrust Series TWC-1     PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1    PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1     PreferredPLUS TrustSeries FAR-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1        PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1     PreferredPLUS TrustSeries LMG-2 PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2     PreferredPLUS TrustSeries UPC-1     PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1 
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

----
|                                                                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 7C Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                         
|Texas - RRC District 7C Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 370    | 448    | 404    | 26     | 272    | 117    | 108    | 1,880  | 31     | 83    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 261    | 161    | 57     | 56     | 663    | 4      | 240    | 23     | 48     | 8     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 14     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CAMPUS EYE MANAGEMENT, 

LLC,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

E. BRUCE DIDONATO,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 93, 2024

§

§ Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. 2023-0671

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

 Submitted: April 2, 2024

 Decided: April 12, 2024

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the responses, it appears 

to the Court that:

(1) In this action under 6 Del. C. § 18-110 concerning management of a 

limited liability company, the Court of Chancery awarded summary judgment in 

favor of the appellee, E. Bruce DiDonato, holding that DiDonato is the manager of 

Campus Eye Management, LLC (the “MSO”). The court also held the MSO in 

contempt for violating a status quo order and ordered that DiDonato was entitled to 

recover the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses that he incurred in bringing the 

contempt motion. The court directed the parties to “confer on a schedule for 
2

submissions to resolve the fees and expenses DiDonato may recover as a sanction 

for the MSO’s contempt.”1

(2) The MSO appealed. The Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 

the MSO to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply 

with Supreme Court Rule 42 when taking an appeal from an apparent interlocutory 

order. In response to the notice to show cause, the MSO argues that the Court of 

Chancery’s decision is final and appealable because the issue of fees is a collateral 

matter and DiDonato has not timely filed a fee application.

(3) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.2 “An order is 

deemed final and appealable if the trial court has declared its intention that the order 

be the court’s final act in disposing of all justiciable matters within its jurisdiction.”3 

The Court of Chancery directed the parties to take further action in the case, and the 

amount of attorneys’ fees for which the MSO is responsible remains unresolved. 

The appeal is therefore interlocutory and must be dismissed.4

1 DiDonato v. Campus Eye Mgmt., LLC, 2024 WL 368112, at *11 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2024).

2

Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 2019 WL 549039, at *1 (Del. Feb. 12, 2019); see also id. (stating that 

it was for the Court of Chancery to decide in the first instance whether a motion for fees was timely 

filed).

3 Wollner v. PearPop, Inc., 2022 WL 2903103, at *1 (Del. July 21, 2022); see also Gaffin v. 

Teledyne, Inc., 1991 WL 181488, at *1 (Del. Aug. 23, 1991) (“An order is final and ripe for appeal 

when the trial court has clearly declared its intention that the order be the court’s final act in a 

case.” (internal quotations omitted)).

4

See, e.g., Wollner, 2022 WL 2903103 (dismissing appeal as interlocutory where the amount of a 

fee award remained unresolved).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
NO. 07-03-0231-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A MARCH 15, 2004

______________________________ HENR Y F. SMITH AND KRONGTHO NG SM ITH, AP PELLAN TS V. BRUCE R. M CALISTER AND SHIRLEY M CALISTER, APPELLEES

_________________________________ FROM THE 4 11TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO LK COUNT Y; NO. 17,388; HON ORABLE ROBERT H . TRAPP, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION AppellantsHenry F . Smith and Krong thong Smith filed a Motion to D ismiss Appeal on March 1, 2004
. No decision o f this Court hav ing been deli vered to date , we gr ant the motion. Acco rdin gly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our-2-

mandate will issue forthwith. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. All costs are assessed to appellant s.
James T. Campbell Justice
**Exhibit13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Greg R. Collier, Chief Executive Officer, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i)                                     the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Dr. Greg R. Collier        |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Dr. Greg R. Collier      |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

December22, 2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained by ChemGenexPharmaceuticals Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 

----
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

TO:

G Trademarks or

6:20-cv-00545

DOCKET NO.

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

GREATGIGZ SOLUTIONS, LLC, LINKEDIN CORPORATION,

HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1 US6662194 12/9/2003 GreatGigz Solutions, LLC

2 US7490086 2/10/2009 GreatGigz Solutions, LLC

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1

2

3

4

5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

09/15/2020 Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice

11/18/2020

DATE

Print Save As... Reset

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK

DATE OF PATENT

OR TRADEMARK

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

Mail Stop 8

Director ofthe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas on the following

G✔ Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DATE FILED

6/17/2020

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Texas

Case 6:20-cv-00545-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Olies Philogene, Respondent, v Fuller Auto Leasing et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 24, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 503 and 511 (a) to change venue from New York to Richmond County, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and disbursements, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident which occurred on March 17, 1987 in New York County. He thereafter commenced this action on June 30, 1987. The summons did not identify plaintiff’s residence or the basis of the venue as selected. The complaint did allege that plaintiff "is a resident of the City and State of New York.” Defendants answered on July 28, 1987 without serving a demand pursuant to CPLR 511 (a) for a change of venue as of right.

Plaintiff was thereafter deposed on July 26, 1989 and testified that he had lived for the past 10 years or more at 1077 Castleton Avenue, Richmond County. He had never, he testified, during any of that period, resided in New York County. By notice of motion dated July 27, 1989, defendants moved for a change of venue to Richmond on the ground that Richmond rather than New York is the proper county for venue, since neither defendant is a resident of New York County and plaintiff resides in Richmond County. The IAS court denied the motion, finding that, since strict compliance with CPLR 511 (a)’s time requirements is mandated, defendants’ failure to serve a timely demand was fatal. We reverse.

Insofar as is relevant, CPLR 503 (a) provides, "Except where otherwise prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which one of the parties resided when [the action] was commenced”. Thus, since neither defendant is a New York County resident and plaintiff at all relevant times has resided in Staten Island, Richmond is the proper county for venue. A change of venue sought as of right on the ground *179that the county selected is an improper one must be sought by service of a demand (CPLR 511 [a]) followed by a motion, if the demand is not acceded to, within 15 days after service thereof (CPLR 511 [b]). Noncompliance with the statutory time requirements should not act as a bar where, as here, a plaintiff’s willful omissions and misleading statements regarding his residence are the cause of such noncompliance and the defendant moves promptly after ascertaining the true state of affairs. Here, defendants’ motion for a change of venue—made the day after they ascertained plaintiff’s residence—could not have been made more promptly. We note that while there is Fourth Department dicta that "the time provisions of CPLR 511 (subd. [b]) are directory only” *(Beardsley v Wyoming County Community Hosp.,*42 AD2d 821), we do not follow that reasoning; in granting this motion we rely, rather, on the misleading tactics of plaintiff’s attorney. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Zone 4 Play, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 result of operations of the Company.

     Dated: March 30, 2007

                                                                  /s/ Uri Levy
                                                                  ------------
                                                                  Uri Levy