alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CYLINK CORPORATION

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Cylink  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 29, 2002 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"),  I, William P. Crowell,  President and
Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18,  Chapter 63,  Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  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  at the  dates  and  for  the  periods
              indicated.

Date: November 13, 2002                          By:     /s/ William P. Crowell
                                                         ----------------------
                                                         William P. Crowell
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Cylink Corporation
#### Bobby Joe SMITH, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OKLAHOMA; Gary Brown, Assistant District Attorney; John Walton, Assistant District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6081

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed June 13, 2017

Bobby Joe Smith, II, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

Bobby Smith, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Following convictions in Oklahoma state court, Smith filed a § 1983 complaint against the State of Oklahoma and two Assistant District Attorneys. The complaint asserts a series of misconduct claims stemming from the defendants’ involvement in Smith’s criminal cases and their purported conspiracy to have him falsely convicted. The district court dismissed Smith’s claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

On appeal, Smith continues to assert claims premised on the misconduct of defendants and other individuals involved in his criminal proceedings. However, he has not raised any coherent claim of error by the district court, and our independent review reveals none. Oklahoma has not consented to be sued in federal court, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1, and § 1983 does not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, see Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). Further, all of Smith’s claims rest on allegations of misconduct intended to undermine his criminal convictions. Success on these claims “would necessarily imply the invalidity of [his] eonviction[s]” and cannot proceed until the convictions have been overturned. Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 557, 558 n.3 (10th Cir. 1999); see also Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364.

AFFIRMED. Because Smith has failed to advance “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), we DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### IN RE: Rohit JAWA, Petitioner.

No. 17-1808

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

Rohit Jawa, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rohit Jawa petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on several motions filed in his criminal case. He seeks an order from this court'directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Richard D. Richards, Resp’t, v. Francis B. Allen, App’lt.

Judgment of county court of Monroe county affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
|                                    |   |                                                             |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 20, 2010 |   | /s/ Victor J. Salerno                                            |
|                                    |   | Victor J. Salerno                                                |
|                                    |   | President, Chief Executive Officer, and                          |
|                                    |   | Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer) |
|                                    |   |                                                             |
| Date:  December 20, 2010 |   | /s/ Robert Kocienski                                             |
|                                    |   | Robert Kocienski                                                 |
|                                    |   | Chief Operating Officer, and                                     |
|                                    |   | Principal Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)        |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6787 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to modify the 

authorization of appropriations for the Las Vegas Wash program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Ms. LEE of Nevada (for herself, Mr. HORSFORD, and Ms. TITUS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

to modify the authorization of appropriations for the 

Las Vegas Wash program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Las Vegas Wash Pro5 gram Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 

7 LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM. 

8 Section 529(b)(3) of the Water Resources Develop9 ment Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2658; 119 Stat. 2255; 125 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6787 IH

1 Stat. 865; 136 Stat. 4631) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘$40,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$65,000,000’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit
32.2





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
RFG Acquisition II Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W. Matre, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to 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.





/s/
      David W. MatreDavid
      W. MatrePrincipal
      Financial OfficerMarch
      6, 2009
Exhibit 99.3

                         OAKWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
                          ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                        OAKWOOD MORTGAGE INVESTORS, INC.
                  SENIOR/SUBORDINATED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                                  SERIES 1999-B

Pursuant to Section 3.13(a) of the Standard Terms to Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (July 1998 Edition) which is incorporated in the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated July 1, 1999 among Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc., Oakwood
Acceptance Corporation (the "Servicer") and Chase Manhattan Trust Co., the
undersigned officer of the Servicer hereby certifies that a review of the
activities of the Servicer during the period October 1, 1998 through September
30, 1999 and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has
been made under his supervision and to the best of his knowledge, based on such
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement through such period.



By:  /s/ Douglas R. Muir
--------------------------

Name:  Douglas R. Muir
--------------------------

Title:     Vice President
--------------------------

Date:   September 30, 1999
--------------------------
#### Vorwald v. Marshall.

1. Appeal: from justice’s court: amount in controversy: jurisdiction. In an action in jusfcice’s court $100 was claimed by plaintiff, but lie recovered judgment for only $10, whereupon he remitted all claims for damages over and above $24.90. Afterwards the defendant appealed to the circuit court. *Held*that the amount in controversy was less than $25, and that therefore an appeal would not lie. *(Milner v. Gross,*66 Iowa, 252, followed.)

*Appeal from Delaviare Cireuit Court.*

Monday, March 21.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*J. D. Alsop,*for appellant.

*L. B.*Lane, for appellee.

Seevers, J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace", and the plaintiff claimed to recover $100. There was a trial, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $10, whereupon the plaintiff remitted “all claims for damages over and above twenty-four dollars and ninety cents.” At that time the right of appeal existed, but had not been exercised by either party. If the plaintiff had appealed, it is perfectly clear that he could not have recovered more than $21.90, and the pleadings in the circuit court would have so shown. The plaintiff did not appeal, but the defendant did, fifteen days after the rendition of the judgment and filing of the *remittitur.*The plaintiff moved the court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in controversy was less than $25. This motion was sustained, and we are asked whether the court erred in so doing. We think not; for the amount in conti*oversy, when the appeal was taken, was less than $25. This case is not distinguishable from *Milner v. Gross,*66 Iowa, 252.

As this is the only question argued by counsel for appellant, the judgment must be Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                    BRAUN CONSULTING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (In thousands except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                              1999                       1998                         1997
                                    =========================   =========================   =========================
                                       Basic        Diluted         Basic       Diluted         Basic       Diluted
                                    -------------------------   -------------------------   -------------------------
Pro forma net income                $     2,020   $     2,020   $       323   $       323   $     1,014   $     1,014
                                    =========================   =========================   =========================
<S>                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Shares used in computing net
  earnings per share.............    13,979,808    13,979,808    11,572,451    11,572,451    10,843,584    10,843,584
Weighted average common shares...             -     1,361,001             -       998,082             -     1,234,191
Effect of shares issuable under
  stock options based on the
  treasury stock method..........    13,979,808    15,340,809    11,572,451    12,570,533    10,843,584    12,077,775
                                    -------------------------   -------------------------   -------------------------
Pro forma earning per share......   $      0.14   $      0.13   $      0.03   $      0.03   $      0.10   $      0.09
                                    =========================   =========================   =========================
</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Banyan Corporation (the "Company")
  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gelmon,
  Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Cory Gelmon 
  Cory Gelmon 
  President and Chief Financial Officer 
  January 19, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Banyan Corporation and will be retained by Banyan Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
May 2012 Amendment to Restated Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10.8a 
 MAY 2012 AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC. SAVINGS PLAN 
 This May 2012 Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the PSS World Medical, Inc. Savings Plan is made and entered into by PSS World Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), this   18th   day of May 2012, and is effective as of July 1, 2012. 
 WITNESSETH:

 WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the PSS World Medical, Inc. Savings Plan (the “Plan”); and

 WHEREAS, the Company is authorized and empowered to amend the Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to include the name of an additional employer recently acquired by the Company as
an “Employer” within the meaning of the Plan and to amend the Plan to credit Participants’ years of service with such employer as Years of Service under the Plan. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Section 1.28 of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“1.28 ‘Employer’ shall mean the Company, Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc., PSS Service, Inc., World Med
Shared Services, Inc., Physician Sales & Service, Inc., Physician Sales & Service Limited Partnership, Proclaim, Inc., PSS Holding, Inc., Ancillary Management Solutions, Inc., Cascade Medical Supply, ThriftyMed, Inc., ClaimOne, LLC,
Dispensing Solutions, Inc., Linear Medical Solutions, LLC, Southeast Medical Solutions RX, LLC (formerly Stat RX USA), LLC, BottomLine Medical Solutions, LLC, Theratech, Inc., Standard Medical Supply, Inc., Keltman Pharmaceutical, Inc., Federal
Medical Supply, Inc., Blue Medical Supply, Inc., Xcel Supply, LLC, Professional Laboratory Systems, Inc., Rebel Distributors Corporation, Infolabs, LLC, and any other subsidiary, related corporation, or other entity that adopts this Plan with the
consent of the Company.” 
  

	 	2.	Section 1.71 of the Plan shall be amended by the addition of two new subparagraphs (p) and (q), which shall read in their entirety as follows: 


“(p) For each Employee who was employed by Rebel Distributors Corporation on May 4, 2012, such Employee’s
‘Years of Service’ shall include, for 







 all purposes of the Plan, service with Rebel Distributors Corporation and
each of its subsidiaries. 
 (q) For each Employee who was employed by Infolabs, LLC on May 17, 2012, such
Employee’s ‘Years of Service’ shall include, for all purposes of the Plan, service with Infolabs, LLC and each of its subsidiaries.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed and is effective as of the date set forth hereinabove. All of the provisions of the Plan not specifically mentioned in this Amendment shall be
considered modified to the extent necessary to be consistent with the changes made in this Amendment. 
  

			
	PSS WORLD MEDICAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ David D. Klarner
	Name: 	 	David D. Klarner
	Its:	 	Vice President and Treasurer
EXHIBIT 23.01
                                                                   -------------






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in 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 April 9,
2004, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule
which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Selected Consolidated Financial Data" in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Stamford, CT
April 13, 2003
#### SAGAINA and TUFAINA, Plaintiffs v. MAUGA MOIMOI and MAUGA TAUFAASAU, Defendants and SAVEA, Interpleader

No. 4-1909

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Appellate Division [Land: “Fatumafuti” near Matu’u]

July 6, 1909

[Judges unnamed]

DECISION

The attached document is accepted as an appeal from the decision of the High Court in the above case by Sagaina.

The grounds for appeal are stated as follows:—

1. That the Maugas do not know where the name Mauga got the original right to the land Fatumafuti, whereas the plaintiffs have shown that they procured claim to the said land by purchase from Savea, the consideration being two (2) fine mats and two (2) bolts of cloth.

2. That the appellant, Sagaina, is a brother of Mauga Taufaasau and that if Mauga Taufaasau should die, and he, the appellant, thereupon succeed to the name Mauga, *632the acceptance of the sum awarded to him by the Court would destroy his interest in the property.

3. The appellant further states; “Had this land been decided entirely to Mauga Moimoi, excluding from it Sagaina and all his descendants, it would be well to us both; to divide the land in two would be in accordance with our wishes.”

4. The appellant further states that Mailo’s mother and the descendants of Sagaina are buried on the land and could only be removed by an expenditure of Two Hundred Dollars and thirty fine mats.

The contention that the appellant’s (Sagaina’s) ancestors obtained the land by purchase is based upon a tradition not supported by evidence and discredited by the present Savea who testifies that he never heard of such transaction, and it is further discredited by the production in Court of a fraudulent letter by counsel for appellants with the intention of strengthening their contention.

Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, dealing only with the effect of the High Court’s decision upon the appellants’ interest, need not here be considered.

The decree issued in the above-entitled cause is hereby affirmed, and the appeal dismissed.

Costs upon appeal are assessed against the defendants, Sagaina and Tufaina, in the sum of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas G. Wiggans, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

Date: May 10, 2004

/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
-----------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer