alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ildiko Rozsa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 31, 2011





/s/ Ildiko RozsaIldiko RozsaTitle:  Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

#### **PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

#### ** **

I, the undersignedRichard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer, of Forgent Networks, Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”);

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by the Report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in the Report;

 

4.             The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have:

 

(a)                                  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within these entities, particularly during the period in whichthe Report is being prepared;

 

(b)                                 Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the Reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                                  Disclosed inthe Report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (thequarter ended January 31, 2008) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The Company’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors:

 

(a)                                  All significantdeficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)                                 Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|   | /s/  RICHARD N. SNYDER   |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Richard N. Snyder        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | March 17,  2008     |

 

----
SERVED: AUGUST 11, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC . - -_,..._ '-.. l 

In The Matter Of: ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.:. i .. ; ~~ -· .... ~ -<. 

JETBLUE AIRWAYS 

CORPORATION 

Respondent 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0813 

Case No. 2012EA150022 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On August 4, 2015, an Order Setting a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference, and 

Directing the Parties to Confer and File a Rule 26(f) Proposed Discovery Plan was filed. Among 

other things, this Order required the parties to file a proposed scheduling/discovery plan on or 

before October 27, 2015, and set a Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for November 3, 

2015. 

On August 10,2015, the parties filed a joint Notice of Withdrawal stating that "JetBlue 

hereby withdraws its Request for a Hearing and Answer to the Complaint" and the "FAA hereby 

withdraws its Complaint." 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The October 27, 2015 deadline for the parties to file a proposed scheduling/ discovery 

plan is cancelled. 

2. The Rule 16 Litigation scheduling Conference set for November 3, 2015, is cancelled. 

3. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the parties have withdrawn their respective pleadings, 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. Christian Lewerenz 

Complainant's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Mr. Steven Raffaele 

Respondent's Counsel 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

31 West 52nd Street 

New York, NY 10019 

TEL: 212-513-3200 

FAX: 212-385-9010 

Judge J .E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0813 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The
undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for
the quarter ended March 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.



/s/ JEFFREY E. HARTMANNJeffrey E. HartmannExecutive Vice President, Financeand Chief Financial OfficerMay 12, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C '"!'^-^i T O r -rORTA u •••;,^

^

• " 1

TRAVE LGROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AN D SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC . AN D RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON E INTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e o f

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l fo

r Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o Your Honor' s Marc h22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g thi s proceeding , file s this report detailin g th e curren t

statu s of thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule do n th e outstandin g motion s file db y Respondent s an doppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions . Date : Jul y 29 , 2011 . Respectfull y submitted . Samue l Podberesky Assistan t Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman , Jr . Deputy Assistan t

Genera l Counse l fo

r Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Willia mJ . Wagne r

s ^ (

I Senio r Tria l Attorne y Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo m96-42 9 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366- 7 J 5 2Docke t No . DOT-OST-1995-27 2 1 hereb y certif

y tha t on thi s 29t

hday o f July , 2011 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y of th e foregoin g Statu s Report

wa s serve di

n th e followin g manne r

t o th e following : Original U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operations . M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 B y Personal Service Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e of Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B v Firs t Clas s Mai l Sco t Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Lelan dNono n Wa y Sa mBernardino , C A 9240 8
#### SIKHS FOR JUSTICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-17441

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 11, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed September 13, 2017

Babak Pourtavoosi, Babak Pourtavoosi, Jackson Heights, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Sunita Bali, Esquire, Attorney, Perkins Coie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Winn Allen, Kirkland *&*Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and SANDS, Senior District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable W. Louis Sands, Senior United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The district court properly dismissed Sikhs for Justice, Inc.’s (SFJ) discrimination claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides interactive computer service providers immunity from civil liability when the claim is premised upon the provider’s role as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), (c)(2). “This grant of immunity applies only if the interactive computer service provider is not also an ‘information content provider,’ which is defined as someone who is ‘responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of the offending content.” *Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com,*LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3)).

Here, it is undisputed that Facebook is an interactive computer service provider. SFJ seeks to hold Facebook liable as a publisher for hosting, and later blocking, SFJ’s online content. *See Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,*570 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), as *amended*(Sept. 28, 2009) (“removing content is something publishers do”). But SFJ, not Facebook, is the party solely responsible for creating and developing the content on SFJ’s webpage. As such, Facebook cannot be deemed an “information content provider,” and it is therefore entitled to the immunity conferred under § 230. Moreover, we have found no authority, and SFJ fails to cite any authority, holding that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides an exception to the immunity afforded to Facebook under the CDA.

Because SFJ’s Title II claim is barred by the CDA, granting SFJ leave to amend its complaint would have been futile. As a result, the district court properly dismissed SFJ’s Title II claim with prejudice.

*5272. The district court properly dismissed SFJ’s pendent state law claims. The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining state law claims after it dismissed SFJ’s sole claim under federal law.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1724

___________ David A. Smith; Gladys H. Smith, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Union Carbide Corporation, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2007 Filed: March 26, 2007

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. David A. Smith and Gladys H. Smith (t he Smiths) appeal from the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide) in this diversity action. The district court held that the Smiths’ action for breach of contract was time-barred. Upon de novo review, see Garner v. Arvin Indus., Inc

. , 77 F.3d 255, 257 (8th Cir. 1996), we affirm.-2- The Smiths leased the surface estate of their land to Union Carbide in 1979. They sued in Arkansas state court on July 7, 2004, alleging that Union Carbide breached the lease by removing “approximately 34,000 cubic yards of top soil.” Union Carbide removed the action to the district court.
Arkansas’ five-year statute of limitations on actions to enforce written contracts “begins to run when the breach occurs.” Highland Indus. Park, Inc. v. BEI Def. Sys. Co. , 357 F.3d 794, 798 (8th Cir. 2004) (c iting Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-111(a) (establishing five-year statute of limitations)). We agree with the district court that the Smiths’ cause of action accrued by Apr il 1997, when the Smiths’ previous counsel sent a demand letter alleging that 34,050 c ubic yards of soil had been removed from their property and threatening suit if Union Carbide rejected their settlement demands. We further agree with the district court that the statute of limitations was not tolled pending the expiration of the lease. See Zufari v. Architecture Plus , 914 S.W.2d 756, 761 (Ark. 1996) (cause of action accrued when government agency rejected architectural firm’s design even though the firm subsequently “attempted to mitigate and correct the breach”). We also reject the Smiths’ argum ent that there is a factual dispute concerning whether the breach o ccurred when Union Carbide removed the topsoil or when Union Carbide failed to re store the property before the lease expired in 1999. That argument is inconsistent the Smiths’ own conduc t in sending a demand letter and threatening suit, thereby indicati ng they regarded the topsoil removal as a breach at the time it occurred. See Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil Co. , 493 S.W.2d 439, 445 (Ark. 1973) (in determining “the intention of the parties” to a contract, a court may “accord considerable weight to . . . subsequent statements, acts and conduct”). Accordingly, we conclude that the Smiths’ action was time-barred, as they failed to bring suit within five years of the alleged breach.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential Securities Strategic
                    Trust and is qualified in its entirety by 
                    reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>          
<CIK>               0001005006
<NAME>              Prudential Securities Strategic Trust
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos

<CASH>                          41,053,649

<SECURITIES>                    3,663,777

<RECEIVABLES>                   21,786

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                44,739,212

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  44,739,212

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,857,409

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      42,881,803

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    44,739,212

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                3,575,614

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3,945,135

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (369,521)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.80)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
#### Paul, Swiderski, Respondent, *v.*Abe Steinhorn et al., Doing Business as Owners of Grand Mountain Hotel, Appellants.

Submitted December 1,1943,

decided January 6, 1944.

*784
      *B. G. Barton*for appellants.

*Myron Wisoff*and *Sylvia Miller*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. •

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
From: Khan, Mohammed Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:27 PM To: 'cdigiovanni@apsp.org' Subject: Shipments Clarification

Dear Carvin DiGiovanni,

The following is a request for an additional information related to the comment you provided to DOE regarding DOE's rulemaking which includes pool heaters.

Your comment provided pool heaters shipments data, and you stated, "T he data collected by the APSP is only available in 2 classifications (Spa

– 130,000 Btuh and lower; and Pool

– above 130,000 Btuh and less than or equal to 400,000 Btuh). The data we w ill share with you today is the sum of these 2 classifications."

Since the shipments are a key component of DOE's anal ysis, it would be very helpful if you could provide the same data separately for Spas and for Pools or simply provide an estimate of the average fraction of Spa shipments versus Pool shipments.

Currently DOE's assumes that Spa heaters account for about 15% of the shipments (source: DOE Technical Support Document for Pool Heaters Standar d, 1993). Your input will help to improve DOE's analysis.

Thank you very much.

Mohammed Khan Building Technologies Program (202) 586-7892 voice (202) 586-4617 fax
#### Wilmer GARCIA-MORAN, AKA Wilmer Garcia, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73802

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*771Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Wilmer Garcia-Moran, Pro Se

Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil División/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Ghief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges..

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wilmer Garcia-Moran, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Garcia-Moran failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. *See Zheng v. Holder,*644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that peti-turners claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Garcia-Moran’s contention that he qualifies for relief based on his Americanized appearance or manners because he failed to present this claim to the BIA. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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