alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015340EN.01000301.xml

| 15.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

14 October 2015

(2015/C 340/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1410 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4612 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74180 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2716 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0901 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2400 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,113 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,04 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2378 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4145 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3500 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5722 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4816 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8429 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6938 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5815 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,3094 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2435 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6280 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 534,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8055 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,447 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,9750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,533 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4198 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8927 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,1465 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1410

JPY

Japanese yen

136,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4612

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74180

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2716

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0901

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2400

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,113

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,04

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2378

RON

Romanian leu

4,4145

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3500

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5722

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4816

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8429

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6938

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5815

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,96

ZAR

South African rand

15,3094

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2435

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6280

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 534,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8055

PHP

Philippine peso

52,447

RUB

Russian rouble

71,9750

THB

Thai baht

40,533

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4198

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8927

INR

Indian rupee

74,1465

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2183

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonard Rondeau

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: November 17, 2016

Filed: November 22, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard G. Rondeau appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after 1

he pled guilty to engaging in sexual contact with a child. His counsel has moved to

The HonorableRoberto A. Lange, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.
withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Having

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal.

Rondeau was sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison with 3 years of

supervised release, to run consecutively to sentences that he was already serving in

Nebraska state prison for other offenses. He argues that the federal sentence should

run concurrently with the state sentences. Rondeau’s appeal waiver should be

enforced and prevents consideration of his claim. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d

702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal

waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court

should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of

waiver, plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and

no miscarriage of justice would result); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (multiple terms

of imprisonment imposed at different timesrun consecutively unless court ordersthat

terms are to run concurrently); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) (court may run state and federal

sentences concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively in order to achieve

reasonable punishment). An independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

The appeal is dismissed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-2-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DELIA GARCIA,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2023-1656

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 18-6558.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s May 9, 2023, show cause order, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal of 

this appeal as untimely. Delia Garcia responds, requesting 

“an opportunity [to] lay out [her] entire case.” ECF No. 9 

at 3. 

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims entered judgment in this case on September 7, 

Case: 23-1656 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/27/2023
2 GARCIA v. MCDONOUGH

2022. In March 2023, the Veterans Court received Ms.

Garcia’s notice of appeal.* 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the 

Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. 

See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Like appeals from district courts, the 

statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the Veterans Court to this court is mandatory and jurisdictional, 

meaning that we cannot take account of individual circumstances for the untimely filing. See Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 

F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. 

Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011) (indicating jurisdictional restrictions on the time for taking an appeal under 

section 7292(a)). Because Ms. Garcia’s notice of appeal was 

not filed within 60 days of any final judgment or order of 

the Veterans Court, we must dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

July 27, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

* The notice indicated Ms. Garcia was seeking review of a final judgment or order entered on “2/26/23,” 

though the Veterans Court docket in the identified proceeding does not reflect any entry between November 8, 2022, 

and March 2023.

Case: 23-1656 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/27/2023
```

[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27383]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14my10-118]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7002]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance To the Central Government of
the Kyrgyz Republic

    Pursuant to section 7088(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division H,
Pub. L. 111-8) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of
section 7088(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of the
Kyrgyz Republic, and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Jacob J. Lew,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Department of
State.
[FR Doc. 2010-11597 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-46-P
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.8


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           PEACHTREE FIBEROPTICS, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




VIA FAX



Union Atlantic Partners I, Ltd.
Attention:  Stephen Hutchings

Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm our  agreement  that Union  Atlantic  Partners I, Ltd.
shall convert as of December 31, 1999 $25,000 of the debt due and owing to Union
Atlantic Partners I, Ltd. from vFinance Holdings, Inc. into 8,400 shares of VFIN
(OTC BB) (Peachtree FiberOptics, Inc.) in full and complete satisfaction of such
debt.  Peachtree  FiberOptics,  Inc. owns 100% of vFinance  Holdings,  Inc. Such
shares are not  registered  and cannot be sold in the public  markets for 1 year
from the date of issue. These shares can be transferred privately at any time.

Please confirm this Agreement by signing as indicated herein below.


PEACHTREE FIBEROPTICS, INC.



By: /s/ Leonard Sokolow
    ---------------------------------------
     Leonard J. Sokolow, Managing Agent


Agreed to and accepted as of this 31st day of
December 1999

UNION ATLANTIC PARTNERS I, LTD.


By: /s/ F.M.C. Limited -- Director
    ----------------------------------------
       Authorized Representative




          3300 PGA BLVD., SUITE 810, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410,
                   VOICE: (305) 374-0282 FAX: (206) 374-5879
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JAMES D. SCHNELLER,

Petitioner

v.

ELIZABETH CAVANAUGH-KERR AND 

MARJORIE ZITOMER,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 455 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal, Application for Relief of Writ of Mandamus to the Trial Court, and Application for 

Relief of Peremptory Mandamus are DENIED.
Exhibit 13.1




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 on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Eric Paneth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
  (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  March 11, 2010
 By:
/s/ Eric PanethEric Paneth, Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE




---



##### 



Corel Corporation
Schedule II  Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(in thousands of USD)
 Balance atBeginning ofPeriod
    
    Additions chargedto Expensesor Revenue
    
    Deductions,Returns, andWriteoffs
   
   Balance atEnd ofPeriodAllowance for Doubtful AccountsYear ended November 20, 2006
    
    1,117
    
    198
    
    312
   
   1,003Year ended
November 30, 2005
    
    1,033
    
    528
    
    444
   
   1,117Year ended
November 30, 2004
    
    1,584
    
    (89)
    
    462
   
   1,033Promotional rebatesYear ended
November 30, 2006
    
    1,048
    
    11,124
    
    9,370
   
   2,803Year ended
November 30, 2005
    
    1,614
    
    5,282
    
    5,848
   
   1,048Year ended
November 30, 2004
    
    1,447
    
    3,140
    
    2,973
   
   1,614Allowance for Sales ReturnsYear ended
November 30, 2006
    
    6,900
    
    11,919
    
    10,795
   
   8,024Year ended
November 30, 2005
    
    10,492
    
    8,316
    
    11,908
   
   6,900Year ended
November 30, 2004
    
    10,290
    
    8,637
    
    8,435
   
   10,492
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06739]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12636-002; Project No. 12153-000]


Mohawk Hydro Corporation; Notice of Pre-Filing Activities in 
Another Docket

    Take notice that some pre-filing activities related to the 
preparation of the license application for the Middle Mohawk 
Hydroelectric Project (P-12636) were undertaken in docket number P-
12153. Documents pertaining to that proceeding are available in the 
Commission's eLibrary under docket number P-12153.
    For further information, please contact Monir Chowdhury at (202) 
502-6736.

    Dated: March 18, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06739 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Dean vs. Earley.

May 15.

under the statutes of 1849, the formal execution and record of a tax deed of *mu-occupied*premises drew after it the possession, and made it incumbent on the previous owner, if he desired to contest its validity, to commence his action, or lake actual adverse possession, within the period of limitation prescribed; otherwise his right was gone.

ERROR to tbe Circuit Court for *Dane*County.

On tbe 6tb of August, 1861, *Earley*commenced an action against *Dean*to recover possession of a certain lot in tbe city of Madison in Dane county. On tbe trial, tbe plaintiff offered in evidence, among other conveyances, a tax deed for said lot, dated June 20, 1851, executed by tbe clerk of tbe board of supervisors of said county, in tbe name of tbe state, to tbe plaintiff’s grantor, duly acknowledged, and recorded June 24, 1851. Tbe defendant objected to tbe reading of tbe deed in evidence, *“*for tbat it was no evidence of title to said lot, and for tbat tbis action was not brought within tbe time required by tbe statute of limitations, in order to entitle tbe plaintiff to any right under said deed.” Objection .overruled. It was admitted tbat tbe lot bad never been actually occupied by any one until tbe previous year, when tbe defendant took possession of it and enclosed it with a fence; and tbat be was in possession at the commencement of tbe action. There was other evidence, which, under tbe decision of tbe court, became immaterial.

Judgment for tbe plaintiff.

*J. H.*Knowlton, for plaintiff in error.

*Abbott, Gregory*& *Pinney,*for defendant in error.

*By the*Court,

Dixoít, C. J.

It was held in *Knox vs. Cleveland,*13 Wis. 245, tbat under tbe statutes of 1849, tbe formal execution and record of a tax deed of unoccupied premises, drew after it tbe possession, and made it incumbent on tbe previous owner, if be desired to contest its validity, to commence bis action or take actual adverse possession within tbe period of limitation prescribed, else bis right was gone-Tbis case comes fully within tbe principle there laid dowm *101and it becomes unnecessary for us to consider tbe other questions presented.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Jones vs. Lathrop.

*Administrator's Sale*— Limitation *of action by heir.*

The doctrine of *Jones vs. Billstein (ante,*p. 221), as to the time within which (under sec. 60, ch. 94, B. S.) the heir must bring his action to recover possession of lands of his ancestor sold by the administrator followed.

*340APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Outagamie*county.

*Warner & By an (with.Palmer, Hooker & Pitkin),*for the defendant and appellant.

*Oahe*JBoucIc, for the respondent.

LyoN, J.

The facts in this case are substantially the same as in the case of *Jones v. Billstein et al.*[ante, p. 221], except that in this case the grantee in the deed from the administrators, and those claiming under him, were not in the actual possession of the premises for ten years before the commencement of this action, and except also that in this case the plaintiff recovered judgment. The two cases were argued together.

The decision in *Jones v. Billstein*is conclusive in this action, in that it holds that the action is barred by the provisions of the Bevised Statutes, chap. 94, sec. 60.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit courtis reversed, and a *venire de novo*awarded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6217

SAMUEL HARMON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT STEVENSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (5:15-cv-01620-HMH)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, KENDRICK & LEONARD, P.C., Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Harmon seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Harmon 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

__________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 25, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 130641(60) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

EULA WASHINGTON, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Lisa B. Griffin,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 130641 
 v COA: 253777 
 Wayne CC: 03-330934-NM

SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATERDETROIT, 

d/b/a SINAI-GRACE HOSPITAL, DETROIT 

MEDICAL CENTER, DR. KUNTA, THOMAS 

PISKOROWSKI, D.O., and DR. AL-SAYAD, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Michigan State Medical 

Society for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is 

GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 25, 2006 

 Clerk
# C_2015358EN.01000401.xml

| 30.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 358/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 358/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 October 2015

(2015/C 358/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0930 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,30 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4576 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71670 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3574 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0851 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3670 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,113 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2699 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4343 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2100 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5446 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4411 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4709 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6360 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5374 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 251,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1247 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9460 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6050 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 953,22 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7414 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,420 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,0745 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,991 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3022 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1941 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,4429 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0930

JPY

Japanese yen

132,30

DKK

Danish krone

7,4576

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71670

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3574

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0851

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3670

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,113

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2699

RON

Romanian leu

4,4343

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2100

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5446

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4411

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4709

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6360

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5374

KRW

South Korean won

1 251,76

ZAR

South African rand

15,1247

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9460

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6050

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 953,22

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7414

PHP

Philippine peso

51,420

RUB

Russian rouble

70,0745

THB

Thai baht

38,991

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3022

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1941

INR

Indian rupee

71,4429

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

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 of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 of the Company as of September 30,
2006 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2006.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Chief Financial OfficerNovember 6, 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTONIO AGUIAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1294

[July 20, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 99-

22445CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Emily Ross-Booker, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.