alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 32.02

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               OF HOMESTORE, INC.
                       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 Homestore, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Lewis R. Belote, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
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, as amended; 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: March 15, 2004

                                               /s/ Lewis R. Belote, III
                                               ------------------------
                                               Lewis R. Belote, III
                                               Chief Financial 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 Homestore, Inc.
and will be retained by Homestore, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,379,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,180,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    487,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,052,069
<PP&E>                                      12,524,404
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,594,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,723,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,139,925
<BONDS>                                      1,738,007
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,698
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,425,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,723,282
<SALES>                                      7,748,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        7,280,143
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,632,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (37,373)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,201,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (490,320)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (711,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (711,106)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Miguel DIAZ-OSUNA, also known as Pariente, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-60212 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s • Office Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, Patrick A. Lemon, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brenda G. Jackson Patterson, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hector Miguel Diaz-Osuna appeals from his judgment of conviction and sentence following his jury trial conviction of conspiracy to cause a riot in a federal prison and his guilty plea conviction of voluntary manslaughter of a federal prison guard. Diaz-Osuna challenges only the jury trial conviction, arguing that that the evidence was insufficient and that the district court erred in giving an Allen1 charge. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively, for summary affirmance based on the appeal waiver in Diaz-Osu-na’s plea agreement. Diaz-Osuna’s opening brief did not address the waiver and he has not responded to the Government’s argument.

We review de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal. *United States v. Keele,*755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Diaz-Osuna’s waiver was knowing and voluntary as the record shows that he knew he had the right to appeal and that he was giving up that right by entering the plea agreement. *See. United States v. Higgins,*739 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, the waiver plainly applies to his challenge to his jury trial conviction. *See id.*According*188ly, we GRANT the Government’s motion to dismiss and DENY the alternative motion for summary affirmance. Counsel for Diaz-Osuna is cautioned that pursuing an appeal contrary to a valid waiver and without responding to the Government’s invocation of the waiver is a needless waste of judicial resources and could result in sanctions. *See United States v. Gaitan,*171 F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.

1

. *Allen v. United States,*164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                             555
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   555
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           701
<OTHER-SE>                                    (50,146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       701
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,130)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
exhibit10_5.htm






Exhibit 10.5







April 17, 2012







JoeVanderPluym












Dear Joe:







The 2012 bonus plan reflects the goals for our company this coming year.  Your bonus is based on pre-tax profit for the company in 2012.








	
35.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$               1


	
42.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$1,000,000


	
50.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$2,000,000


	
62.50%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$3,000,000


	
75.00%

	
  of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of

	
$4,000,000












In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in the opinion of the Compensation Committee, you meet the goals outlined in the document provided to you separately and the company makes a pre-tax profit of at least $1.







I will send a quarterly update in conjunction with our earnings announcement to update you on the performance of the company versus the bonus plan.







The 2012 bonus period covers the fiscal months of February 2012 through January 2013.  You must be an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time the bonus is paid to be eligible to receive your bonus.







Sincerely,






















Peter Edison







ss
#### The Inhabitants of Athol *versus*The Inhabitants of Watertown. Same *versus*The Inhabitants of New Salem.

Where a person lived in a town nine years and four months and then absconded and never returned, but his wife remained there eight months longer, it was held that he had not resided there ten years actually or constructively, and so had not gained a settlement in the twelfth mode in *St.*1793, c. 34. [Revised Stat. *c.*45. § 1.]

Assumpsit to recover expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in supporting'Seth Stone, a pauper.

Upon a case stated it appeared, that the pauper was ti e legitimate son of Jonathan Stone, whose settlement was in Watertown. The pauper removed to New Salem in April, 1794, and resided there till August, 1803, when he absconded, leaving his wife there. He never returned. He had no fixed place of residence, after he absconded, until after the lapse of ten years from the time when he went to New Salem to reside. His wife remained there until May, 1804. Before the ten *45years had elapsed she stood in need of relief and received assistance from the town. The pauper paid taxes for more than five years during the time of his residence in New Salem.

*Oct.*2*d.*

*Oct. 4th.*

The plaintiffs were to recover judgment against Watertown oí New Salem, according as the settlement of the pauper snould be determined to be in one or the other of these towns.

Newton, for the inhabitants of Watertown,

contended that the pauper had “ resided” in New Salem ten years, within the meaning of *St.*1793, c. 34, *residence*being used as equivalent to domicile, and that where a residence is once fixed, the burden of proof is on the other side to show that it has been changed. *Prov. St. 4 W. $• M. c.*13; 12 & 13 *Will.*3, *c.*10 ; *St.*1789, c. 14 ; *Lincoln v. Hapgood,*11 Mass. R. 350 , *Chelsea*v. Malden, 4 Mass. R. 131 ; *Granby*v. *Amherst,*7 Mass. R. 1 ; *Billerica*v. *Chelmsford,*10 Mass. R. 394 ; *Ab ington*v. *Boston, 4*Mass. R. 312 ; *Hardwick*v. *Raynham,*14 Mass. R. 363.

*Bigelow*and *Brooks,*for New Salem.

*Merrick,*for the plaintiffs.

*Per Curiam.*

The pauper has not had a residence for ten years, either actual or constructive, in the town of New Salem. There is no evidence, that when he absconded, he had *animus revertendi.*The inhabitants of Watertown must be defaulted ; and in the action against New Salem the plaintiffs must become nonsuit.
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **iDNA,
        INC.**
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
 **AND
        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 I,
        Robert
        V. Cuddihy, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
        (the “Registrant”), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form
        10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), do hereby represent,
        warrant and certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
        knowledge:
 
 (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 results of operations of the
        Registrant.
 
 
 /s/
        Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
 
 Name:
        Robert V. Cuddihy, Jr.
 Title:
        Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
 (principal
        accounting and financial officer)
  Date: September
        16 ,
        2008
  
  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 iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by iDNA,
        Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
  52
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel HERNANDEZ-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-40143 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Hernandez-Velasquez, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*254PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Hernandez-Velasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Velasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Ronald BASCOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3623

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1
 As adopted by the
Board of Directors
on April 17, 2008
 ART TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 Purpose
 Eligibility
 Administration and Delegation
 Administration by Board
 Appointment of Committees




---



##### 



Delegation to Officers
 Stock Available for Awards
 Number of Shares
 Section 162(m) Per-Participant Limit
 Stock Options
 General
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Incentive Stock Options
 Exercise Price
 Duration of Options
 Exercise of Options
 Payment Upon Exercise
   - 3 -




---



##### 



Substitute Options
 No Repricing of Options
 Stock Appreciation Rights
 Nature
 Grants
 - 4 -




---



##### 



Tandem Awards
 Independent SARs
 Exercise
 Duration of SARs
 Restricted Stock
 Grants
 Terms and Conditions
 Stock Certificates
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Deferred Delivery of Shares
 Other Stock-Based Awards
 Adjustments for Changes in Common Stock and Certain Other Events
 Changes in Capitalization
 Reorganization Events
 Definition
 Consequences of a Reorganization Event on Awards Other than Restricted Stock
Awards
 - 6 -




---



##### 



- 7 -




---



##### 



General Provisions Applicable to Awards
 Transferability of Awards
 Documentation
 Board Discretion
 Termination of Status
 Withholding
 - 8 -




---



##### 



Amendment of Award
 Conditions on Delivery of Stock
 Acceleration
 Performance Conditions
    - 9 -




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 No Right To Employment or Other Status
 - 10 -




---



##### 



No Rights As Stockholder
 Effective Date and Term of Plan
 Amendment of Plan
 Provisions for Foreign Participants
 Governing Law
 Effect of Amendment
 Construction
 - 11 -
Exhibit 99.5



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 Brookfield Office Properties Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December
31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis H. Friedrich,
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 to the best of my 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|By: /s/ Dennis H. Friedrich
        Dennis H. Friedrich
        Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



March
27, 2013
EXHIBIT
32.2


Certification
of the Chief Financial Officer


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 accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A of Asian
Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
I, William D. Suh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the
      Company.








Date:
March 10, 2009


/s/
      William D. SuhWilliam
      D. SuhChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original 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.
#### HIGHLAND AL HUJAZ CO., LTD., Appellant v. Robert M. SPEER, Acting Secretary of the Army, Appellee

2016-2090

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

August 21, 2017

Herman Martin Braude, The Braude Law Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant.

Steven J. Gillingham, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, arguéd for appellee. Also represented by. Steven Michael Mager, Chad A. Rea-dler, Robert .E. Kirschman, Jr.; Daniel B. McConnell, United States Army Corp of Engineers, Winchester, VA.

(Newman, Lourie, and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been' heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 63920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25513]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 6, 2012

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2012-0164.
    Date Filed: October 1, 2012.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: October 22, 2012.
    Description: Application of K5-Aviation GmbH requesting an 
exemption and a foreign air carrier permit authorizing K5-Aviation to 
engage in: (i) Foreign charter air transportation of persons, property, 
and mail from any point or points behind any Member State of the 
European Union, via any point or points in any EU Member State and via 
intermediate points, to any point or points in the United States and 
beyond; (ii) foreign charter air transportation of persons, property, 
and mail between any point or points in the United States and any point 
or points in any member of the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) 
foreign charter air transportation of cargo between any point or points 
in the United States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters 
pursuant to the prior approval requirements set forth in the 
Department's regulations governing charters; and (v) charter 
transportation authorized by any additional route rights made available 
to European Union carriers in the future, to the extent permitted by 
the Applicant's homeland license on file with the Department.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2012-25513 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```