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


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

        In connection with the Annual Report of Too, Inc. (the "Company"), on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent A.
Kleeberger, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

        A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO TOO, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY TOO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.


Dated: April 9, 2003
                                /s/ Kent A. Kleeberger
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              Kent A. Kleeberger
                              Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer







                                      109
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99


          REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of September 30,
1998, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the
three-month and six-month periods ended September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flow for the six-month periods ended
September 30, 1998 and 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above, for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as
of March 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
separately herein), and, in our report dated April 23, 1998, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1998, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.



Arthur Andersen LLP



Tampa, Florida,
   October 15, 1998
A.T.W. v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160075

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
| (1)   | the      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Skinvisible, Inc. for the year ended      December 31, 2007 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year      ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of Skinvisible,      Inc.. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Terry Howlett                                                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                            |
| Name:  | Terry      Howlett                                                              |
|   |                                                                            |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer, Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|   |                                                                            |
| Date:  | April      14, 2008                                                             |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                       2,108,000
<SECURITIES>                                 4,890,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,943,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   187,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,267,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,753,000
<PP&E>                                      19,769,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,211,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,363,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,977,000
<BONDS>                                        176,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,271,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,363,000
<SALES>                                     24,004,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,004,000
<CGS>                                       13,960,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,868,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (97,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,233,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   443,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   790,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit





 



[NAME]
MARCH 15, 2018
PARENT-BASED 
AWARD LETTER
The Compensation and Management Succession Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has awarded you:
Parent-Based Award Valued at _______ 
Date of Grant: March 15, 2018
This Parent-Based Award was awarded pursuant to the Protective Life Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the 2018 Parent-Based Award Provisions (“Provisions”), as set forth in Appendix A to this Award Letter, and the Plan. The Plan and the Provisions contain terms and conditions regarding the vesting of this Parent-Based Award, termination of employment, tax withholding, non-solicitation of Company employees and customers, regulatory compliance and other matters, and I encourage you to read the Provisions carefully.
Please retain these documents in your personal records.
                        
Richard J. Bielen
President and Chief Executive Officer of Protective Life Corporation
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Philip M. Wall, the Chief
Financial Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Philip M. Wall                    
|                      |  |  |  | Philip M. Wall Chief Financial
Officer
#### Commonwealth *versus*Josiah Stevens.

Upon a complaint against one for unmilitary conduct on a muster day, to which he pleaded not guilty, and which was carried to the Court of Common Pleas by appeal, — if the jury find him guilty, the Court may award the penalty, although, on the plea of *nil debet,*the jury might have assessed the penalty.

This was a writ of *certiorari,*issued to the Circuit Court of Common Pleas, for the county of *Plymouth,*at the instance of the said *Stevens,*a private soldier in a militia company, to bring before the court the proceedings upon a complaint made against him by *Enos Eaton,*clerk of a company of militia in *Middleborough,*in the said county, for unmilitary conduct on two several muster days. The * complaint was originally made to a justice of the peace, and process was issued by him within seven *183days after the first of the two days on which the misconduct was alleged to have been committed. An appeal was made to the Common Pleas, where the cause was tried by a jury, on the issue of not guilty; and a verdict being returned against the respondent, that court sentenced him to pay two fines, of five and ten dollars respectively, with the costs of prosecution.

*Eddy,*for the respondent,

argued that it was the province of the jury to assess the penalty, and not of the Court, the process being, in its nature, a civil action for the recovery of. a penalty; and for this he cited the cases of *Dyer*vs. *Hunnewell,*
      (1) and *Stilson*vs. *Toby.*
      (2) This must especially be proper, and even necessary, where the penalty demanded is by law uncertain in amount.

12 *Mass. Rep.*271.

2 *Mass. Rep.*522. — 3 *Black. Com.*377.

*Sed per Curiam.*

Under the plea of not guilty, the jury could not assess the fine. Had the respondent pleaded *nil debet,*which would have been the most regular, it would have been otherwise

*Proceedings affirmed.*
•

AVS

Quality Management System

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Revision

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8

Record of Contacts

2010-/211

OMS Docket No. FAA-21l6' -

------

Date: 9/0112007

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Persor Contacted Date

ATA Joe White 04/01/2U09

ATA Joe Whitt' 08/IUI2UIU

I

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master List to Verify That This is thJ Correct Revision Before Use
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erik ALTAMIRANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50445

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

October 2, 2017

Benjamin Joseph Katz, Daniel Earl Zipp, Helen H. Hong, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James Fife, Kristi A. Hughes, Morgan Stewart, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel uñanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*453MEMORANDUM **

Erik Altamirano appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Altamirano contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. He argues that the district court improperly (1) refused to consider his statement concerning his role in the offense, despite finding his statements reliable for purposes of granting adjustments for safety-valve and acceptance of responsibility; (2) failed to consider all of the likely participants in the offense and their relative culpability; and (3) relied on superseded case law. Altamirano suggests that he was entitled to the adjustment because he was a first-time offender who carried the drugs on his body. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

The record reflects that the district court considered Altamirano’s statement about his role in the offense, but nevertheless concluded that the adjustment was not warranted. Furthermore, the record reflects that the court compared Altamirano to other participants in the offense beyond his recruiter, and did not apply this court’s precedent in any way that conflicts with the 2015 amendment to the minor role Guideline. The district court applied the correct legal standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying the adjustment based on the totality of the circumstances. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Charles McLaughlin, Appellant.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Charles P.*Sullivan, *District Attorney (James F. T. Delaney*of counsel), for motion to dismiss appeal.

*Joseph Lonardo*in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal and in support of application for enlargement of time.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied and application for enlargement of time granted and time enlarged to the autumn, 1943, session of this court and appeal to be heard upon six printed, copies of the record used in the Appellate Division and upon a printed brief in this court..
Marcos A. VELEZ, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3664

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to comply with this court's order of April 16, 2018, requiring the filing of an initial brief.

NORTHCUTT, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 15, 2018

No. 04-17-00223-CV

Maria Lidia GONZALEZ et al,

Appellant

v.

ESTATE OF IDELFONSO RAMIREZ,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6215

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellees’ unopposed third motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to July 5, 2018. No further extensions of time will be allowed.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSE LUIS MANZO, a.k.a. Jose Manzo, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 16-30151 

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-02071-LRS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Manzo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-30151 

Manzo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We 

review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under 

section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 

2009). Contrary to Manzo’s contention, the district court did not conclude that he 

was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the 

parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Rather, 

the district court correctly held that it lacked the authority to reduce Manzo’s 

sentence because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable Guidelines range. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.01** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration    Statements on    Form S-8    (nos.    333-123299,333-72192,333-58510,333-55828,333-54886,333-48582,333-46252,333-84545,333-89170,333-89172    and    333-113662)    and on    Form S-3    (Nos.    333-107963,333-72746,333-61410    and    333-80419)    of Homestore, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2006, with    respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial    statement schedule of Homestore, Inc., Homestore, Inc,    management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of    internal control over financial reporting of Homestore, Inc.    included in this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    for the year ended December 31, 2005.     /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP     Los Angeles, California    March 8, 2006
1 On October 16, 2008, this Court issued a memorandum opinion dismissing this appeal. See

Gorena v. Blackwell, No. 13-08-00323-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7893 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Oct. 16,

2008, no pet.). On February 9, 2009, this Court issued an order granting appellant’s motion for rehearing and

withdrawing our previous opinion and judgment issued in this cause. The appeal remains pending before the

Court. 

NUMBER 13-08-00323-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

DELIA GORENA, APPELLANT,

v.

BETRESSA BLACKWELL AND 

JESSICA LYNN BLACKMAN, APPELLEES.

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 36th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yanez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Delia Gorena, perfected an appeal from a judgment rendered against her

in favor of appellee, Betressa Blackwell and Jessica Lynn Blackman. On May 20, 2009, 1
2

the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was

originally due on June 5, 2008, and that the deputy clerk, Ernestina Roblez, had notified

this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record.

The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to

correct the defect, if it could be done. See TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was

advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this

notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 2nd day of July, 2009.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         130,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,054,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                   997,926
<INVENTORY>                                     73,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,099,112
<PP&E>                                      11,329,426
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,918,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,197,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,483,328
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        99,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,890,963)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,197,331
<SALES>                                      9,309,272
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,309,272
<CGS>                                        7,168,109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,168,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,350,777)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             508,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (777,925)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (777,925)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>