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

                                                                       Exhibit 5

                               Hale and Dorr LLP
                               Counselors at Law
                  60 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109
                        617-526-6000 * FAX 617-526-5000

                               November 12, 1999


Sycamore Networks, Inc.
10 Elizabeth Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824

     Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8
          ----------------------------------


Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This opinion is furnished to you in connection with a Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), for the registration of 19,382,553 shares of
Common Stock, $.001 par value per share (the "Shares"), of Sycamore Networks,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), issuable under the Company's 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors Option Plan, 1999
Stock Incentive Plan and 1998 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plans"). Certain of the
Shares are being offered and sold by the Company pursuant to the Plans (the
"Primary Shares") and certain of the Shares are being registered for resale by
certain stockholders of the Company and are being offered pursuant to the resale
prospectus included in the Registration Statement (the "Reoffered Shares").

     We have examined the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of the
Company, each as amended and restated to date, and originals, or copies
certified to our satisfaction, of all pertinent records of the meetings of the
directors and stockholders of the Company, the Registration Statement and such
other documents relating to the Company as we have deemed material for the
purposes of this opinion.

     In examination of the foregoing documents, we have assumed the genuineness
of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as
originals, the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us
as copies, the authenticity of the originals of such latter documents and the
legal competence of all signatories to such documents.

     We express no opinion herein as to the laws of any state or jurisdiction
other than the state laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Delaware
General Corporation Law statute and the federal laws of the United States of
America.

     Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that (i) the
Shares have been duly authorized for issuance and (ii) the Reoffered Shares and,
when issued and paid for in accordance with the terms of the Plans, the Primary
Shares, will be validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     It is understood that this opinion is to be used only in connection with
the offer and sale of the Shares while the Registration Statement is in effect.
\ 

• REF ~D:A67629·· 

ADDR ... CINL.Y DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ' 

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE 

WASHINGTON 

ll41 •tateten.,1950 

r , 

B91U'J a. GtauttR 

lnl'I 8ecv1tJ' AgenQJ" Pentarpn ~l~s. 

Rashln~ton 25• a.a. 

L .J 

Notice of Allowa.nce 

i!JIAilED 

MAY 16 1950 

The applicahon for patent filed under the proVIs1ons of U S C , title 35, sechon 45 

(Act of March 3, 1883, as amended), 1denbf1ed below, has been examined and 

found allowable for the lSSUance of Letters Patent. 

TITLE OF IRVERTIOR OR IMPRO'VEMEll'l' 

SERIAL NUMBER FJLIRO DATE WMBER CLAIMS ALLOWED 

551,172 1 

The Letters Patent will be issued and forwarded in about ninety days from date 

unless earlier issuance, not less than four weeks from date, is requested by the 

applicant. 

Additional copies of the printed patent containing the specrlicahons and drawings 

are obtainable at the price of twenty-five cents each H certified copies of the patent 

are desired, an adcbhonal charge of fifty cents is made for each certificate Remittance should accompany the order Check, money order, or postal note should 

be made payable to the ComnuSS1oner of Patents Postage stamps are not 

acceptable as payment 

By direction of the Commissioner. .J , .. 'G • ........ ® ... 

Emrmner.· 

roved for Release b NSA on 09-06-2013 ursuantt E .0. 1352
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


        The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and
acting Chief Executive Officer of Fidelity National Information Solutions, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and hereby further certifies as follows.

        1.     The periodic report containing financial statements to which this
               certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
               Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

        2.     The information contained in the periodic report to which this
               certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
               the Company.

        In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.

Date: March 28, 2003                     /s/ PATRICK F. STONE
      -----------------------            ---------------------------------------
                                         Patrick F. Stone
                                         Chief Executive Officer
# CE2004084EN.01059902.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/599 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/599

---

(2004/C 84 E/0674)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0482/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Eurostat

Subject:

Could the Commission confirm if any of the OLAF investigators initially involved in the Eurostat investigation were amongst the 12 former UCLAF staff moved from OLAF to the Commission in 2001?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

(5 April 2004)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has informed the Commission that four of the officials referred to in the Honourable Member's written question were part of the investigation section of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) which dealt, among other things, with the questions relating to Eurostat.

---
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck , 133 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2012-Ohio-5271.]

C INCINNATI B AR A SSOCIATION v . H AUCK .

[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Hauck, 133 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2012-Ohio-5271.] (No. 2011-0023

— Submitted October 17, 2012

— Decided November 15, 2012.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

__________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by re spondent, John Wesche Hauck, Attorney Registration No. 0023153, last known busin ess address in Ci ncinnati, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of July 7, 2011, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 12 months, with six months stayed on conditions, and its order of March 5, 2012, wherein the court found respondent in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s July 7, 2011 order and revoked the six-month stay of the original suspension and suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), finds that respondent has substantially co mplied with those orders and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(10)(A). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this cour t that respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that on or before 30 days from the date of this order, relator shall file with the clerk of this court the name of the attorney who will serve as respondent’s monitor, in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is
further ordered that at the end of res pondent’s probationary period, relator shall file with the clerk of this court a repor t indicating whether respondent, during the probationary period, complied with the terms of the probation.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 5} It is further ordered that at the end of the probationary period, respondent may apply for te rmination of probation as provided in Gov.Bar R. V(9). It is further ordered that res pondent’s probation shall not be terminated until (1) respondent files an applica tion for terminati on of probation in compliance with Gov.Bar R. V(9)(D), (2) respondent complies with this and all other orders issued by this court, (3) respondent complies with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, (4) relator files with the clerk of this court a report indicating that responde nt has complied with the terms of the probation, and (5) this court orders that the probation be terminated. {¶ 6} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

______________________
REF ID:A104683 

1. aine9 the ttlbjeet ?.xeeu:U.vw. Orde has been little publ!o!Bed:, 1t is possible that the •1attificanee ct OtJrlain of 1ts provieiONI 1111' 

have been overloobd. 

2. !Vqraph 2 ot tho Order, ff# .xample, reqUired {with ~uential «1".Cepticnt1) that,~ an lnfentien, :'egai'dleBt!I 

t!4 its olass:l.t:l.c:at1ozi, 18 -.de bf• ~nt emp~, the .aploy- 1»8 age!IC71 

· a.. mtist tile an ~lloattcn tw- patent (wbreas this i• no\ 

now ~ practice 1f theolaesltioa.Ucn. ia h!P), CJ: 

~ 

b. bt 419olo8e the h\"fent1on to the Chairman ot the 

rateut.J UOQ\t• U ,.t \Dl'OlUQ4'd.J the l!xeoutiYe Ordctr ret}uUrN 

• flP&01al o~ tai- the 1mirldual to be ~. 

). trn4er ~nt.Q ~ to be -.de and poUC1•a to be tdopted 

by the c~, &Ui WID'W!ml (not x.c•ssa:ri.17 patented) owned r11: 

~troll.ed w t.118 llnited state" or ~ ~nt ~ ..U be in• 

~ 

daed, ~, aDC1 ab~ ud ahaU ?>fl ad• aTailable io all 

agel)Cie1 arxt to pub1io Ub:t-arl.es, univenities, tr.4• u.ootat~, acienu.ts, #01entific group.a, Wuetrr~ cam:aere!al ~1&t1ms, and &11 other illte:r~ated O"OU:PS o.r pers0118. 

4. !ha d.eola~ ot the Cha11'mlUl on the •tter• above 1tadiae.te4 

c. •.ut>Jwt to• CCDaidftaticu Of U.t1tt'lal ~t.1 02- pnbl1e boalth, ..r.v11 _.. •ltu'e, bttt ~ actual oontrols aro eate.blfebed tar h1a. 

J. The ~t J>atehta ~ 1# 11.0t realit'Uc in oomposi"tien 

~ 

fdnc.e the Genlsra1 ~s A!mildetr&tion, U.p&rl,m®.t at State' 

of the ~l :De~nt ot ~!.culture,, ! 89% 

~~mad Oivu Sen1oe Cc:mdanion oach has nae~ the 

a.me npreeent& aa t.ba ~tot Deteme alt.hough tbAt Mense establiehmen~ produce :c-"Obabb' 11(#9 ittventic:ma than all othe:tenlJ' 

Government 

ao tu 

aattno1•s 

as its Cbfdrllan 

combined. 

1s 

!Ii& 

concerned• 

lloard h, 

u 

in 

it• ~ Mmbers 

9"ent, 

haw: ~ DO votes. 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-17-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
-- --\ 

REF ID:A104683 

.. ... -
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1
                                                                     -----------

                          TOMMY HILFIGER CORPORATION

                      (An International Business Company)

                      CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION
                       ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                  PURSUANT TO THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF
                 THE COMPANY ON THE 31/ST/ DAY OF JANUARY, 1998


AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
--------------------------------------

1.   RESOLVED, that pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Company's Memorandum of
     Association (the "Memorandum") and Paragraph 46 of the Company's Articles
     of Association (the "Articles"), Paragraph 6 of the Memorandum be, and
     hereby is, amended to increase the authorized capital of the Company from
     $550,000.00 to $800,000.00; and

2.   RESOLVED, that pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the Memorandum and Paragraph 46
     of the Articles, Paragraph 7 of the Memorandum be, and hereby is, amended
     to increase the number of authorized shares of Ordinary Shares (par value
     $.01 per share) from 50,000,000 to 75,000,000.


Dated this 5/th/ day of May, 1998.


                            /s/ Richard Parsons
                            --------------------------------------------
                            HWR SERVICES LIMITED
                            Registered Agent
#### The State ex rel. Forsyth, Appellant, *v.*Brigner, Judge, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 71.]

(No. 99-165

Submitted May 4, 1999

Decided July 7, 1999.)

*72
      *M. Wayne Forsyth, pro se.*

*Mathias H. Heck, Jr.,*Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and *John F. Krumholtz,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

In his propositions of law, Forsyth asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the following reasons, Forsyth’s contentions lack merit.

First, Forsyth’s claim for a writ of mandamus to prohibit Judge Brigner from enforcing his order is, in fact, a request for a prohibitory injunction, which the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to grant. *State ex rel. Lanham v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.*(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 425, 426-427, 687 N.E.2d 283, 284.

Second, Judge Brigner acted within his discretion in limiting Forsyth’s access to the domestic relations court, given Forsyth’s myriad of meritless filings. See *Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Human Serv.*(1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 755, 759, 686 N.E.2d 320, 323, discretionary appeal not allowed (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1439, 676 N.E.2d 1186.

Finally, any error by Judge Brigner in issuing the order or failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Forsyth’s 1998 motion to vacate his 1995 divorce decree can be adequately resolved by appeal. See, *e.g., State ex rel. Enyart v. O’Neill*(1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 655, 656-657, 646 N.E.2d 1110, 1112-1113 (trial court retains jurisdiction to grant relief from judgment and extraordinary writ will not issue because error in ruling on motion may be adequately raised on appeal); *Smith*(issue of propriety of order preventing further filings raised in appeal).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Friends of East Hampton Airport, Inc. et al., 

Complainant, 

v. FAA Docket No. 16-15-02 

Town of East Hampton, NY 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally 

Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). 

Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, Section 16.ll(a), the date by which the Director's 

Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to January 11, 2017. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete 

determination in this case. 

Kevin . Willis, Director 

Offic of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 12, 2016, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of 

Time for FAA Docket 16-15-02 addressed to: 

Complainant 

Leonard D. Kirsch 

Shelley A. Ewalt 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 N. Broadway, Suite 129 

Jericho, NY 11753 

lkirscMilmklawnyc.corn 

sewalt(wmklavmyc.corn 

Counsel for Respondent 

Elizabeth Vail 

Town Attorney 

Town of East Hampton 

!59 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY !1937 

EVail:2i)EHamptonNY.Gov 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Catherine van Heuven 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com 

cvanheuven!iz)kaplankirsch.com 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance Division (A CO-l 00) 

FAA Eastern Regional Office (AEA-600) 

J . I 

laudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
Exhibit 4.2

 

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

OF

ROBERTS PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL, L.P.

 

The undersigned, desiring (with other persons as limited partners) to form a Georgia limited partnership named Roberts Properties Residential, L.P. (the “Partnership”), in which the undersigned is to be the original general partner, and desiring to record this Certificate of Limited Partnership pursuant to Section 14-9-201 of the Georgia Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act as the Partnership’s statutory certificate of limited partnership, does hereby certify as follows:

 

1.     The name of the Partnership is Roberts Properties Residential, L.P.

 

2.     The name of the registered agent and the address of the registered office of the Partnership is:

 

Sanford H. Zatcoff, Esq.

Holt, Ney, Zatcoff & Wasserman

100 Galleria Parkway

Suite 600

Atlanta, Georgia 30339

 

3.     The name and business address of the sole general partner is as follows:

 

Roberts Realty Investors, Inc.

8010 Roswell Road

Suite 120

Atlanta, Georgia 30350

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the general partner has duly executed, sealed and delivered this Certificate.

 

 

	
 
    	
ROBERTS   REALTY INVESTORS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
        /s/   Charles S. Roberts
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
        Charles   S. Roberts, President
Mr. Ro'bert A. Sloman 

14a6 Buhl. Bu.ilding Detroit 26, Michigan 

Deal' M,r. SlOmEUlf 

REF ID:A65400 

- _j 

!lO Secon4 Street, s.:s. 

Walhington 3, D ~ C. 

a4 May l.954 

:Receipt or ;your letter or 14 May' l9S4 ud ar tha parcel poot 

package 11 acknQvledged .. 

J'U'•t let m thank YoU tor ;your courteoy- in 1111-ki ng aYailable thia 

aaq>lo or the •teria.1. Eowever, I regret to have to aay that I do not 

think that I voul4 care to acQ.Ui:re thi• :im.ter!e.l and unfortunately l 

have no tugg6•tion a• to the Mme Ctt e:ny peraon or Ql"gan1u.t1on that 

lldght like to acquire it. I n:c:entl;y bad another talk with Dr .. Wright 

tit the :tolger BhakelSpeare Libl"al'f and tound him to be quite cool to 

the idea. All a. ma.tte,r of tact, I apent a couple or hours there l&at 

iaturday looking over the vaot uiount ot Jac:oniana -.terial vhich they 

have ~ vhieh they, too 1 vould probably like to dispose ~ .. 

l: had thought there vu a po•sibility that you had in thl.• 

l!laterial •ome printed vol~• ot the vork }'Ubliahed. by Dr. Owen but 

apparently that 1a not the cue.. In partiC\1.1.a.r, I would like to obtain 

a copy o:t acme ct Mr•. Oal.lup • • printed vorks 1 but 11PJ18.rentlf y~ 

t10llection doe• not 1llclu.de auoh m.te~ial. 

Under 1epa.rate c:over I am retu;rning the :package you •ent me aM. 

l hope it arrive• in good. condition. I muat call ;your attention to 

the f'act that the paper ia now old and 1"ather tragile. 

'W'ith regr•t tbat t C&n not aee rfQI ~ clear to giving you a 

lrlOre 1ati1ractor;y a.newer, I am, 

Sincerely you:ta, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

. 

... 

~ 

... 

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from Equidyne
Corporation's Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         38,450
<SECURITIES>                                    7,864
<RECEIVABLES>                                     124
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,182
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  638
<PP&E>                                          1,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                    399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 54,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,486
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,632
<OTHER-SE>                                     36,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   54,178
<SALES>                                             4
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    4
<CGS>                                               2
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       2
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                3,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (94)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                36,703
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,603
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,603
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.27



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6864

JAMES HENRY BURLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-1000-7)

Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 18, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Henry Burley, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Henry Burley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burley has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED