alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 10-K of
Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Gregory M. Capitolo, as Senior Vice
PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Office 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, to the best of his knowledge, that:



(1)    the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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/    GREGORY M. CAPITOLOGregory M. Capitolo Senior Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer  March 18, 2003
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
# CA2015182EN.01000101.xml

| 3.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 182/1

---

ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LIST

Open competition EPSO/AD/205/10

Administrators (AD 7)

(2015/C 182 A/01)

Customs:

Customs:

| ALMEIDA | Paulo |
| --- | --- |

ALMEIDA

Paulo

The reserve list will be valid until 1 April 2018.

1 April 2018

---
# C_2016073EN.01000101.xml

| 25.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7934 — Blackstone/Norske Skog)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 73/01)

On 19 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7934. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7934. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Affiliated Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Colonial Theatre, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 9, 1937.

*John M. Keating,*for the plaintiff.

*Blecheisen & Whelan,*for the defendant.

Steinbrink, J.

The defendant, a foreign corporation, appears specially to vacate service of a summons and complaint on the ground that it was not at the time of such service subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. The defendant is a New Jersey corporation, having its principal place of business in Orange, N. J. It has no office in the State of New York; it has no officer or agent resident in the State of New York. Its business is the exhibition of motion picture films in the State of New Jersey. Periodically the defendant’s president comes into the State of New York to purchase films and to make contracts for their purchase. It was upon one of such visits that the service was made. *“*Visits on such business, even if occurring at regular intervals, would not warrant the inference that the corporation was present within the jurisdiction of the State.” *(Rosenberg Bros. & Co.*v. *Curtis Brown Co.,*260 U. S. 516, 518; 43 S. Ct. 170, 171; 67 L. Ed. 372. See, also, *Hoffman, Inc.,*v. *Mode Shoppe, Inc.,*138 Misc. 742.)

The motion is granted.
Exhibit 23.2

     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board of Directors and Stockholders
GraphOn Corporation:

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-119402, 333-107336, 333-88255 and 333-40174) of
our report dated February 23, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of GraphOn Corporation, which appears in this Amendment
No. 2 to Form 10-KSB on Form 10-K. Our report on the consolidated financial
statements and schedule contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.



/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
BDO Seidman, LLP
San Jose, California
January 15, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7450

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

QUAISHIC LAMONT CAPERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (2:11-cr-00601-CWH-1; 2:12-cv-02506-CWH)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quaishic Lamont Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Quaishic Lamont Capers seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Capers 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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.


Date: April 15, 2010

BY: /S/ JASON MEYERS
Co-Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          47,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,053)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               419,019<F1>
<PP&E>                                          49,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                (26,453)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 638,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          287,784<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           356
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   638,010
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               687,443
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  588,339
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,154
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,443
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.50
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $219,390.
<F2>INCLUDES NOTES PAYABLE ON REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE OF $134,827.
</FN>


</TABLE>
REF ID:A39530 ~~.,.,~-~- - - - ---;:;;. -- ·- - -- -;r- -- - --

.. - ._. • 
REF ID:A39530 

~- . 
REF ID:A39530 ..---------

• 
REF ID:A39530 

- -- ---

• 
REF ID:A39530 

-?~~?_:-_:-:::::~-·c-H --····- ~ ~ ---... ,,_ . ---- - -,,..
1H

- NMR
Sanitized
#### Bratkovich v. Bratkovich

*Philip N. Shelapinsky,*for plaintiff.

*John M.*O’Connell, *Jr.,*for defendant.

July 8, 1982

SCHERER, *J.,*

This case comes before the court upon preliminary objections filed by defendants in an action for specific performance with regard to the purported sale of certain real property.

*122Defendants, as owners of a certain tract of land, purportedly entered into a parol understanding with the plaintiffs.

Defendants in their preliminary objections rely upon defense of the statute of frauds. More particularly, defendants argue that the memorandum attached to plaintiffs complaint and marked Exhibit “A” does not show a contract between the parties with reasonable certainty.

We believe the instant matter is controlled by the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Suchan v. Swope, 357 Pa. 16, 53 A.2d 116 (1947).

“In his attempt to defeat the present action Ray seeks recourse to the Statute of Frauds, claiming that the receipt of March 30, 1945, which referred to the property being sold as “my farm” did not sufficiently describe it to permit of a decree of specific performance. This contention cannot be sustained . . . The designation “my farm” under the circumstances of the present case, is clearly sufficient to satisfy the statute.”

The receipt in the present case “Exhibit A” makes an even clearer reference to the property in question than the “my farm” designation in Suchan. In the instant case the reference is to “partial payment on property in Claridge”.

The instant factual situation falls within the ambit of proposition set forth in Suchan regarding the sufficiency of a memorandum with regard to the statute of frauds.

ORDER OF COURT

And now, this July 8, 1982, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that defendants’ preliminary objections are dismissed.
================================================================================

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Lansdowne Security, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, Chief Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


     Dated:  November 18, 2010


     /s/ David Roff


     David Roff
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 21

Deltic Timber Corporation

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

As of December 31, 2006



|                                      |  |                       
|------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  | State of Incorporation
|                                      | 
|Deltic Timber Purchasers, Inc.        |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Deltic Southwest Timber Company       |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Deltic Real Estate Investment Company |  | Delaware              
|                                      | 
|Chenal Properties, Inc.               |  | Arkansas              
|                                      | 
|Chenal Country Club, Inc.             |  | Arkansas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,289,619
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,177,294
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      64,599,164
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    146,429,690
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,222,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             231,031,563
<DEPOSITS>                                 189,174,804
<SHORT-TERM>                                21,890,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,117,997
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,830,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             231,031,563
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             12,041,424
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,760,885
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               328,178
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            16,130,487
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,831,557
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,238,484
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,892,003
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  177,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,195,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,636,242
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,677,722
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,677,722
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.8
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,092,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,990,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,200,586
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  226,856
<RECOVERIES>                                    72,248
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,222,978
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
^T rr-:-':c;y->-;T'~in\! 

ALASKA JUNEAU 

Answer to Motion to reopen Selection of Carriers for Dockets 2002-

12014 and 2008-0217 

Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. ("AJA") objects to Air Excursions, L.L.C.'s ("AE") 

Motion to Reopen the Selection of Carriers dated February 2,2010 for the following 

reasons. 

AE's allegation that AJA does have the necessary Caravan's to fulfill its contractual 

obligations to the Department to provide air service to Kake and Excursion Inlet AK Is false. 

AJA currently leases 2 Caravans and 3 Cessna 207s and v/ill continue to have the needed 

aircraft to meet its contractual obligations to the DOT. 

AE's allegation that AJA has over-charged the Department by substituting aircraft is false. 

AJA bills the Department $307.54 for departures in a C208 and $170.86 for departures in a 

C207. This represents a 45% savings to the department which is more than the cost 

difference Mr. Myers claims of 40%. The reduction in subsidy is by departure, so it 

automatically accounts for the difference in indirect expense. AJA could have run the more 

expensive aircraft on the route and needlessly billed the department for empty seats. 

However, this seems fiscally irresponsible. 

AE's allegations that AJA has not flown all required flights to Kake and Excursion Inlet Is 

false. AJA has completed every flight to these communities that were safe to do so. AJA has 

done so In the most efficient aircraft possible. In no case did we turn passenger traffic away 

to fly a smaller aircraft. 

Contrary to AE's allegations, AJA has actually gone beyond its contractual obligations as 

follows: 

1. Even though only contractually obligated to provide two round trips per day, AJA 

provided three round trips last summer at our own rislc. Additionally, the statistics 

provided end last November 2009, in December 2009 AJA flew every trip to Kake in a 

C208. 

2. In about two months AJA will have its entire inventory distributed on all on-line travel 

agencies (Expedia, Travelocity, etc.) This level visibility in the global distribution system 

is unprecedented for these rural communities. AJA has taken this step at its own 

expense and outside of the costs contemplated In its original bid. 

8421 Livingston Way • Juneau, AK 99801 • 907-789-0790 
ALASKA JUNEAU 

We submit that AJA has faithfully, and diligently upheld its obligations to the 

department and the communities, that Air Excursion's false accusations should be 

disregarded, and that their Motion should be denied. 

Sincerely, 

Rob McKlnney 

President 

Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. 

8421 Livingston Way • Juneau, AK 99801 • 907-789-0790
OSCEOLA COUNTY SCHOOL 

BOARD and JOHNS EASTERN 

COMPANY, INC.,

Appellants,

v.

SHEILA STONE,

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. 1D16-1837

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Neal P. Pitts, Judge.

Date of Accident: March 8, 2013.

Pamela J. Cox and Jodi K. Mustoe of Cox & Rouse, P.A., Maitland., for Appellants.

Nicholas A. Shannin of Shannin Law Firm, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  1.
    
    The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2, fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 Dated: March 16, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis PurcelChief Financial Officer and Secretary