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

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER AND THOMAS E. FERNEAU

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of World Am
Communications, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their
knowledge:

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

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



Dated: May 17, 2004                    /s/  James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander, President



Dated: May 17, 2004                    /s/  Thomas E. Ferneau
                                       Thomas E. Ferneau
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14 , 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00999- CV

MICHAEL BROUSSARD, Appellant

V. LOVELY ABRAHAM, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18- CCV -063029

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 9, 2018. The notice of appeal was filed November 15, 2018. To date, our records show that appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs). Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (2013)

.2

On January 14, 2019, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee on or before February 1, 2019 or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order

. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



G.T. Interactive Entertainment (Europe) Limited
WizardWorks Group, Inc.
Humongous Entertainment, Inc.
Candel Inc.
FormGen, Inc.
Gold Medallion Software, Inc.
Mediatechnics Ltd.
1051236 Ontario, Inc.
FormGen Corp.
Renegade Interactive Entertainment Limited
Bramblewold Computers Limited
GT Interactive Software France S.A.
GT Interactive Entertainment Company Germany GmbH
Premier European Promotion Limited
One Stop Direct Limited
Software Sourcerers International Limited
Wizardworks (UK) Limited
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection  with  the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Genta  Incorporated  (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the  Report),
I, William P. Keane,  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) 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:  August
9, 2005

|/s/ WILLIAM P. KEANE    | 
|----------------------- | 
|William P. Keane       
|Chief Financial Officer

33

---
Exhibit


EXHIBIT 10.2






THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT dated as of August 21, 2015 (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between:
(1)ANIXTER INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Seller”); and


(2)OPTIMAS OE SOLUTIONS, LLC (formerly AIP/FASTENERS LLC), a Delaware limited liability company (the “Buyer” and, collectively with the Seller, the “Parties” and each a “Party”).


W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Parties are party to that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of February 11, 2015, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of March 24, 2015, and Amendment No. 2 thereto dated as of June 1, 2015 (as so amended, the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Definitions.  Except as otherwise expressly indicated herein, capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement.




		
	2.
	Amendment of Agreement Section 3.3(a).   Clause (a) of Section 3.3 of the Agreement shall be, and hereby is, amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:  




“Not later than September 15, 2015, the Buyer shall prepare and deliver to the Seller a statement (the “Initial Statement”) calculating and setting forth the actual Adjustment Value on the Economic Closing Date (the “Closing Adjustment Value”), which statement shall include a worksheet setting forth in reasonable detail how such value and payment were calculated.  The Initial Statement shall be prepared in accordance with GAAP and consistent with Schedule 1.1(a) and the Agreed Valuation Principles.”


		
	3.
	No Other Amendment.  Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the Agreement is not, and shall not be deemed to be, amended, modified or waived in any manner whatsoever, and, as so amended, is hereby ratified and confirmed.




		
	4.
	Incorporation of Provisions.  The provisions of Sections 12.7, 12.8, 12.9 and 12.12 of the Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Amendment, mutatis mutandi, as effectively as if set forth herein in full.


[Signature page follows]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written:
ANIXTER INC. 
 
By:      /s/ Ted Dosch                       
Name: Ted Dosch     
Title:   Executive Vice President – 
Finance & Chief Financial Officer


    
OPTIMAS OE SOLUTIONS, LLC 
 
By:      /s/ Stanley Edme                
Name: Stanley Edme     
Title:    Vice President and Secretary
#### Trice *v.*Miller.

4-9187

229 S. W. 2d 233

Opinion delivered May 1, 1950.

*Hal B. Mixon,*for appellant.

*230Leelar, J.

Mrs. Charley Miller died childless, without a will, owning 50 acres of land which had been devised to her by her father’s will. She left surviving her a husband, appellee Charley Miller, and blood relatives among whom are the appellants here. Charley Miller is in possession of the 50 acres. Appellants brought suit for a partition of the land. At the trial the Chancellor held that Charley Miller ‘ ‘ is vested with a right of possession of the entire tract for his natural life by virtue of his homestead interest.” Appellants contend this was error.

The land in question, having come to Mrs. Miller by devise from her father, was ancestral estate. *Oliver*v. *Vance,*34 Ark. 564; *Hofstatter*v. *Bona,*205 Ark. 729, 170 S. W. 2d 1016. The relevant law as to a husband’s interest in his wife’s ancestral lands appears in Ark. Stats., § 61-228: “Upon-the death of a married woman, her husband shall be entitled to the following portion of her estate, undisposed of by her will: . . . where she leaves no descendants, as to the lands in which her estate is ancestral the husband shall be entitled to one-third of her real property for life. . . .” Our law gives the husband no additional right of homestead in his wife’s lands. See Ark. Const., Art. IX, §§ 6, 10; Ark. Stats., § 62-601, *et seq.*His right in her ancestral lands is a one-third interest for his life.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 12 (a)

 

GENERAL ELECTRICCAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

AND CONSOLIDATEDAFFILIATES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|   |   | **Years      ended December 31*(In millions) **2002  **2001  **2000  **1999  **1998 
Net earnings
$
3,611 
$
5,417 
$
5,192 
$
4,443 
$
3,796
Provision for income taxes 
(79
) 
1,380  
1,912  
1,653  
1,364
Minority interest 
143  
163  
214  
186  
148               
Earnings before income taxes and minority      interest 
3,675  
6,960  
7,318  
6,282  
5,308               
Fixed charges:              
Interest 
10,078  
10,836  
11,415  
9,607  
9,122
One-third of rentals
326
335
392
356
296               
Total fixed charges 
10,404  
11,171  
11,807  
9,963  
9,418
Less interest capitalized, net of      amortization 
(38
) 
(88)  
(121)  
(87)  
(88)               
Earnings      before income taxes and minority interest,

plus      fixed charges
$
14,041
$
18,043
$
19,004
$
16,158
$
14,638               
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges 
1.35  
1.62  
1.61  
1.62  
1.55
 

 

 ************* |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 1 of 18  PAGEID #: 246

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 2 of 18  PAGEID #: 247

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 3 of 18  PAGEID #: 248

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 4 of 18  PAGEID #: 249

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 5 of 18  PAGEID #: 250

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 6 of 18  PAGEID #: 251

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 7 of 18  PAGEID #: 252

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 8 of 18  PAGEID #: 253

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 9 of 18  PAGEID #: 254

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 10 of 18  PAGEID #: 255

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 11 of 18  PAGEID #: 256

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 12 of 18  PAGEID #: 257

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 13 of 18  PAGEID #: 258

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 14 of 18  PAGEID #: 259

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 15 of 18  PAGEID #: 260

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 16 of 18  PAGEID #: 261

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 17 of 18  PAGEID #: 262

Case: 2:17-cv-00229-MHW-EPD Doc #: 30 Filed: 02/28/18 Page: 18 of 18  PAGEID #: 263
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-34488, 333-67371, 333-76724, 333-79385,
333-96919 and 333-100322) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-39674, 333-39676 and 3433-39678) of Headwaters Incorporated of our report
dated July 15, 2002 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 23, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2018 FEB-5 PM \:kQ

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION u , ,

BRYAN KANU )

) Case No. l:18-cv-38

Plaintiff )

-vs-

)

) Honorable J. Black

) Honorable M.J. Bowman

SIEMENS PLM, et al., )

\

Defendants

)

)

) RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

)

Here comes the Plaintiff, Bryan Kanu, responding to U.S. Magistrate Judge

Bowman's order to show cause as to why the conditional grant ofinforma pauperis

status should not be revoked and denied.

In the order, the honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge stated that the Plaintiff "failed

to indicate the amoimt paid each month concerning any of his loans, indicating only the

total debt owed."

The Plaintiffstates that he currently has $31, 833.06 in outstanding private

student loan debt, and that he pays the monthly interest on each ofhis 6 private Sallie

Mae loans in order to reduce the amount he has to pay upon graduation. Plaintiffstates

that he pays approximately $144 per month in total on these loans.

Plaintiff, respectfully, requests the court not revoke and deny the conditional grant

ofinforma pauperis because ofthe fact that the Plaintiff is a full-time independent

student, and that one weekly expense not documented on the application for informa

Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/05/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 583
Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/05/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 584
Case: 1:18-cv-00038-TSB-SKB Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/05/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 585
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20474

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CRUZ MARTINEZ-CANTU,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-454-1

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Cruz Martinez-Cantu (Martinez) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United

States after deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal

that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2)

are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). Martinez acknowledges that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court
No. 04-20474

-2-

review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See

Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Also for the first time on appeal, Martinez argues that the

district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory

guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005). Because he did not raise this issue

in the district court, this court reviews the argument for plain

error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,

732-33 (5th Cir. 2005). Martinez makes no showing, as required

by Valenzuela-Quevedo, that the district court would likely have

sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. 

See id. at 733-34. Similarly, there is no indication from the

court’s remarks at sentencing that the court would have imposed a

sentence below the appropriate guideline range. Thus, Martinez

has not met his burden to show that the district court’s

imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was

plain error. See id.; see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 732-35 (1993). Accordingly, Martinez’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MICHAEL POHL,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00019
Plaintiff,
: District Judge Walter H. Rice
vs. : Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL: DECISION AND ENTRY

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Defendant.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. #13), to whom this case was
originally referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been
filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has
expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on April 3, 2019 (Doc. #13) is
ADOPTED in full;

2. No finding is made as to whether Plaintiff Michael Pohl was under a “disability”
within the meaning of the Social Security Act;

3. This case is remanded to the Social Security Administration under sentence 4 of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with the Report and
Recommendations and this Decision and Entry; and

4. The case is terminated on the Court’s docket.
La. (A

Walter H. Rice
United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-45028) and on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-92337,
333-80501, 333-85107 and 333-26015) of Verso Technologies, Inc. (formerly Eltrax
Systems, Inc.) of our report dated February 28, 2000, except for discontinued
operations reclassifications and revisions, the date for which is July 19, 2000,
relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 29, 2001
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                          -----------------------
                                             1995        1996
                                          ----------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>
       Net income available to common
        stockholders                      $  565,189   $1,965,204
       Accrued dividends on preferred
        stock                                478,000       82,346
                                           ----------   ----------
       Net income for computing pro
        forma net income per share         1,043,189    2,047,550
                                          ==========   ==========
       Pro forma weighted average
        common shares outstanding(1)       2,920,728    4,961,220

       Shares of common stock
        assumed to be issued upon
        exercise of common stock
        options and warrants to
        purchase common stock
        using treasury stock
        method, including "cheap"
        options and warrants as              450,272      442,780
        outstanding for all periods       ----------   ----------

       Weighted average number
        of common and common
        equivalent shares
        outstanding during the
        period                             3,371,000    5,404,000
                                          ==========   ==========
       Pro forma net income per                $0.31        $0.38
        share                             ==========   ==========

-----------------
</TABLE>

(1)  Pro forma weighted average shares outstanding gives retroactive effect to
     the conversion of the outstanding shares of Preferred Stock into shares of
     Common Stock immediately prior to the completion of the Company's initial
     public offering.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Gerald Bullocks,
Plaintiff(s),
Case Number: 1:18cev23
vs.
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Aaron Mummert, et al.,
Defendant(s).
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman filed on February 6, 2018 (Doc. 5), to whom this case was referred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the
time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired February 20, 2018, hereby
ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) with the exception of plaintiff's first amendment retaliation

claim against defendant Mummert.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Susan J. Diott\l
United States a Court
Exhibit
4(v)
  
  February
18, 2009
  Securities
and Exchange Commission
 100 F.
Street, N.E.
 Washington,
D.C. 20549
 
 Subject:
              
              General
      Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2008 – File No.
0-14804
 
  Dear
Sirs:
  Neither
General Electric Capital Services, Inc. (the “Corporation”) nor any of its
subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt
that is not registered or filed with the Commission and under which the total
amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the
registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with
paragraph (b) (4) (iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K
(17 CFR §229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument
which defines the rights of holders of such long-term debt not filed or
incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.
    Very
      truly yours,
                
                GENERAL
      ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.By:
              /s/
      Kathryn A. CassidyKathryn
      A. Cassidy
                Senior
      Vice President Corporate Treasury
                and
      Global Funding Operation
  (1)