alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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  on  Form  10-K  of  Switchboard
Incorporated  (the  "Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned,  Robert P. Orlando,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


Dated:  March 28, 2003                      /s/Robert P. Orlando
                                            --------------------
                                            Robert P. Orlando
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damian MATA Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4432

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 24, 2017

Filed: July 26, 2017

*445Brett M. Shasky, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Fargo, ND, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Damian Mata, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Damian Mata directly appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense and the district court1 imposed a sentence consistent with Mata’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which contained an appeal waiver. Mata’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Mata’s sentence.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, applicable, and enforceable. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). We have independently reviewed the record, pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300, (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

p0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

138355 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138355 

 COA: 281662 

Calhoun CC: 2007-001125-FC 

JULIAN LEE NELSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 8, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit
      23.01**











CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-3 (No. 333-120264) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-88513,
      No. 333-39016, No. 333-75230, No. 333-89886 and No. 333-110131) of DSL.net,
      Inc. **** of
      our
      reports dated March 24, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements
      and the financial statement schedule which appear in this Annual Report on
      Form
      10-K.   We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
“Selected Financial Data” in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.




*/s/
                Carlin, Charron & Rosen, LLP* Glastonbury,
      Connecticut


March
      31,
      2006
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: September 24, 2007/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Principal Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T N A TH A N I EL W I LLI A M S, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. C L AU DE E . F I NN , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 16010 D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 5 4 6 - GEB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 ** B e f o r e : H A W K I N S , M c K E O W N , a n dI K U T A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C alifo rn ia state p riso n erN ath an iel W il li am s ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng the l os s of go od t i m e c re di t s f

ol l ow i ng pri son d i sc i pl i naryproceedi ng s f or un l aw ful i nfl uence o f s t a f f . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED AU G 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16010 2 W i l l i am s c on t ends thathi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol at ed w hen h e w as deni ed the op po rtun i ty t o cal l four st af f w i tness es atthe pri son d i sc i pl i nary he a r i ng. I n l i ghtof

the r e c or d, the w i tne s s e s ’ pr opos e d t e s t i m onyw a s i rr e l e va nt a nd a nye xc l us i on w a s ha rm l e s s . T he r e f or e , the C a l i f

orni ac ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on thatW i l l i am s w as af

forded hi s due proces s r i gh t s w as no tcontraryt o, or an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r lye s tab lis h e dS up r e m e C o u rt law . See 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; s e e al

s o B r e c ht

v . A braham s on , 50 7 U . S . 61 9, 63 7 (19 93 ); W ol f f v. McD o n n e ll , 4 1 8 U .S . 5 3 9 , 5 6 6 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.4  Press release



May 28, 1997

 
                              For further information contact:

                              David M. Bradley
                              President and Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa  50501
                              515-576-7531


           NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. COMPLETES STOCK REPURCHASE

Fort Dodge, Iowa May 28, 1997 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: "FFFD")
announced that it has completed its third stock repurchase program on May 27,
1997. The Company said it repurchased 171,472 shares of its outstanding common
stock, par value $.01 per share, at the aggregate cost of $2,706,750, in open
market transactions. The repurchase program received regulatory approval on
April 16, 1997. Upon settlement of the last transaction on or about May 30,
1997, there will be 3,257,983 shares of North Central Bancshares, Inc. common
stock outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $200 million in assets, is the holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank of Fort Dodge, a federally chartered
stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution serving
north central Iowa through 4 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, and
Ames, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6552 

To require the Government Accountability Office to study and recommend 

a definition for workforce housing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. LAWLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Government Accountability Office to study 

and recommend a definition for workforce housing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing for America’s 

5 Middle Class Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that— 

2 

•HR 6552 IH

1 (1) the lack of affordable housing in the United 

2 States is an issue impacting millions of middle-class, 

3 working American families; 

4 (2) many of these families earn more annually 

5 than the income limits for certain Federal housing 

6 financing and benefits; and 

7 (3) these families are often excluded from living 

8 in neighborhoods near their places of work, schools, 

9 shopping, and healthcare due to a lack of afford10 ability. 

11 SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

12 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact13 ment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 

14 States shall submit to the Congress a report that— 

15 (1) identifies issues with housing affordability 

16 for America’s middle-income homeowners and rent17 ers, including identifying geographically where hous18 ing is the most unaffordable for these populations; 

19 (2) identifies Federal housing programs, includ20 ing Federal tax credits, grants, credit programs, and 

21 other programs that currently benefit lower-income 

22 households, which are not available to middle-income 

23 households; 

3 

•HR 6552 IH

1 (3) identifies any gaps in the inclusion of mid2 dle-income households in Federal housing programs 

3 designed to promote affordability; 

4 (4) sets forth recommendations for a definition 

5 of ‘‘workforce housing’’ based on income parameters 

6 in order to assist Federal agencies in including mid7 dle-income households under existing Federal pro8 grams; and 

9 (5) analyzes how such a definition could relate 

10 to incentives for workforce housing development 

11 through Federal programs, policies, and other initia12 tives. 

Æ
#### Edwin LAINEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70160

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Maria Janossy, Law Offices of Maria Janossy, Los Angeles, CA, Angela Y. Suh, Attorney, Law Offices Angela Y, Suh, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Scott Michael Marconda, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John Frederick Stanton, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Edwin Lainez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lainez’s untimely motion to reopen, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Lainez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for the relief he sought, *see Toufighi,*538 F.3d at 996 (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case); *see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive critical, [an applicant] must provide *some*evidence of it, direct or cir-*455cumstantiar); *see Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED,

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 10.5

                           MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The  Parties  to  this  Memorandum  of  Understanding  ("MOU")  are:

     PRIME  AIR,  INC.  ("PRIME")  AND
     GALVIN  FLYING  SERVICE,  INC.  ("GALVIN").

Prime  and  Galvin, on signing of this MOU, will make best efforts to conclude a
Final  Agreement  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time.

The  Purpose  of  the  negotiations  is  for  Prime  to have Galvin, under Final
Agreement,  operate at Pemberton Airport as their executive Fixed Base Operation
(FBO)  for  all  aircraft  services  not related to the scheduled services being
operated by Prime's Operating Partner Voyageur Airways.  However, additional FBO
arrangements  with  Voyageur  may  be  negotiated separately with the consent of
Prime.

Negotiations on a Final Agreement are specifically to cover the following areas:

     1.   Time  frame  for  lengthening and completion of the runway to a length
          mutually  agreed  and in accordance with Transport Canada regulations.

     2.   Time  frame for instrument approach certification to a mutually agreed
          level  and  in  accordance  with  Transport  Canada  regulations.

     3.   Customs  and  Immigration  arrangements.

     4.   Aviation  fuel  farm  arrangements.

     5.   Agreement  on  FBO  temporary  offices  in  main  terminal.

     6.   Stand-alone  FBO  facility.

     7.   Specific  areas  of  responsibility  of  Galvin  to  Prime.

     8.   Financial  arrangements  between  Prime  and  Galvin.

This  MOU  does  not create any binding commitments, or financial obligations of
either  party  to the other.  It is signed in the spirit of putting a time limit
on  how  long  it  will  take  to negotiate a fair and mutually beneficial Final
Agreement  that  will,  itself,  be  a  binding  contract.

Dated  this  22nd  day  of  September,  2003

For  Prime  Air,  Inc.                         For  Galvin Flying Services, Inc.

/s/  Blain  Haug                              /s/  Peterson  G.  Anderson

Blain  Haug,  Chairman                         Peterson  G.  Anderson, President
Prime  Air,  Inc.                              Galvin  Flying  Services,  Inc.
Suite  601,  938  Howe  St.,                   7149  Perimeter  Road
Vancouver,  BC,  Canada                        Boeing  Field,
V6Z  1N9                                       Seattle,  WA  98108


                                       13
<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Stanley MELVIN, Defendant-Appellant.

16-10040 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 21, 2017)

Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office—FLM, Ocala, FL, Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Jennifer Lynn Peresie, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Dionja Dyer, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Meghan Ann Collins, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. *United States v. Bushert,*997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); *United States v. Grinard-Henry,*399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant error).
**EXHIBIT- 32.1**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofMossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(1)              The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit -32.1, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)              The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the Company.

 
| /s/    | Mossimo Giannulli                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Mossimo Giannulli                       |
|   | Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|   | May 13, 2005                            |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HASBEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE FORM10-Q TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THECOMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHERMADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-Q), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERALINCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

 

----
| Subsidiaries                           | Jurisdiction                          |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Perficient,      Inc.                  | Providence      of Ontario, Canada    |
| Perficient      Canada Corp.           | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      iPath, Inc.            | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      Vivare, Inc.           | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      Bay Street, LLC        | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      Insolexen, LLC         | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      DCSS, Inc.             | Delaware                              |
| Perficient      E-Tech, LLC            | Delaware                              |
| BoldTech      International LLC        | Colorado                              |
| BoldTech      Systems (Hangzhou), Ltd. | People’s      Republic of China |
| ePairs      India Private Limited      | India                                 |