alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

** **

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”) I, Barbra E. Kocsis,Chief Financial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, thegeneral partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2010                      |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                         |                 |
|                                         |                 |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |                 |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |                 |
|                                              |                      |  |

 

----
#### WATSON v. MILLER.

Appeal from Bell county.

*Practice.*— The motion to dismiss this appeal is based upon the ground that this court has no jurisdiction, by reason of the fact that no such final judgment has been rendered in the court below as from which an appeal will lie. Held: The judgment is not final, as a portion of the case still remains in the district court to adjust the equities between parties defendant. The motion is granted, Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0372 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until April 20, 202 3 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 9 2023

03/09/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0372
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                    |  |                                         
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Fernando Sanchez                    
|                    |  | Fernando Sanchez Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2****Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Annual Report of eTelecare Global Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended December 31, 2007 as filed on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Michael Dodson, chief financial officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated:March 14, 2008 By: /s/ J. Michael Dodson     J. Michael Dodson    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  
112
#### IN RE: Rita LIPPERT, Rudolf Linder, Appellants

2016-2255

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 9, 2017

Scott Blackman, Nath, Goldberg and Meyer, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellants. Also represented by Joshua. Brian Goldberg.

Kakoli Caprihan, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for Appellee Michelle K, Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Robert Mcbride.

(Reyna, Linn, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-169798) pertaining to AtheroNova Inc.’s 2010 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of AtheroNova Inc. and Subsidiary included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of AtheroNova Inc. and Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ Weinberg & Company P.A.





Weinberg & Company P.A.




Los Angeles, California


March 30, 2010
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1



                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
FTD.COM INC.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of FTD.COM INC. of our report dated July 27, 2000, relating to the balance
sheets of FTD.COM INC. as of June 30, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements
of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2000, which report appears in the
June 30, 2000 annual report filed on Form 10-K of FTD.COM INC.



/s/ KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
August 23, 2000
| Dated:  April 13, 2010 |   |   |                        |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                             |   |   |                        |   |
|                             |   |   | /s/ Keith Wong              |   |
|                             |   |   | Keith Wong                  |   |
|                             |   |   | Chief Executive Officer     |   |
|                             |   |   |                        |   |
| Dated:  April 13, 2010 |   |   |                        |   |
|                             |   |   |                        |   |
|                             |   |   | /s/ Norm Klein              |   |
|                             |   |   | Norm Klein             |   |
|                             |   |   | Principal Financial Officer |   |
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3089

_____________________________
R ICHARD A. A LEXANDER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. March 13, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Richard A. Alexander, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Bryan Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
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 Quarterly  Report of Smith Barney  Principal PLUS Futures
Fund L.P. II (the  "Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I,  Daniel R.  McAuliffe,  Jr.,  Chief  Financial  Officer and
Director of Smith Barney Futures Management LLC, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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
Partnership.

/s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
Chief Financial Officer and Director
November 14, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7060 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7060

    To make permanent the authority to reimburse members for spouse 
      relicensing costs pursuant to a permanent change of station.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2024

 Mr. Cartwright (for himself, Ms. Norton, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mrs. 
 Torres of California, Mr. McGovern, and Mrs. Peltola) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make permanent the authority to reimburse members for spouse 
      relicensing costs pursuant to a permanent change of station.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Spouse Job Continuity 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE MEMBERS FOR SPOUSE RELICENSING 
              COSTS PURSUANT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

    Section 453(g) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
(3).
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Bernard BRAGG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11913 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 4, 2017)

*768Michelle Lee Schieber, U.S. Attorney Service—Middle District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christina Lee Hunt, Erin Leigh Pinder, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Macon, GA. for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Following the Surpeme Court’s decision in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the district court vacated Randy Bragg’s 210-month sentence, which had been imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Because the ACCA no longer applied to Mr. Bragg, his maximum statutory sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was 10 years, and his advisory guideline range was 57-71 months.

By the time of the resentencing hearing, Mr. Bragg had served approximately 198 months in prison—78 months more than his maximum 10-year sentence. So both Mr. Bragg and the government asked the district court to impose a sentence at or below the 10-year maximum. The government told the district court that a sentence of time served (i.e., 198 months) would be illegal because it would exceed the 10-year maximum.

The district court varied upward and imposed a sentence of time served. Because Mr. Bragg had served approximately 198 months in prison, the time-served sentence exceeded the 10-year maximum and constituted reversible error. We therefore vacate Mr. Bragg’s sentence and remand for resentencing. *See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez,*586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that sentence exceeding statutory maximum constituted plain error and required vacator). The district court shall impose a sentence at or below the 10-year statutory maximum.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Dallas County 

Public Defender’s Office

 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., 9th Floor, LB 2  Dallas Texas 75207-4313  Phone: (214) 653-3550  Fax: (214) 653-3539 

May 12, 2015 

Lisa Matz, Clerk

Fifth Court of Appeals

600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 

Dallas, Texas 75202

 Re: Certification of Compliance with Rule 48.4 

 Russell Starks v. The State of Texas 

 Trial Court Case No. F13-32480-K 

 Appellate Court Case No. 05-14-00191-CR

Dear Ms. Matz:

Pursuant to Rule 48.4, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that a copy 

of the opinion and judgment in the above styled and numbered cause was sent, certified mail, 

return receipt requested, to the Appellant at his last known address. I further certify that, 

along with the opinion and judgment, a letter was included in which the Appellant was 

advised that I intend to file a Petition for Discretionary Review on his behalf.

Respectfully, 

/s/ Kathleen A. Walsh

Kathleen A. Walsh

Assistant Public Defender

enclosure: certified mail return receipt 

cc: G. Brian Garrison, Assistant District Attorney

ACCEPTED

05-14-00191-CR

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

5/13/2015 10:54:13 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 5/13/2015 10:54:13 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
~ 0'\ 

'." 

II Complete i!omsl, 2. and 3, Also complete 

item 4 if .Restricted Delive!Y'ls desired. c 

II Print your liame and address on the reverse 

so that we can return the card to you. 

• Attach this card to the back of thg'imailpiece, 

or on the front if space permits. 

\t:);;~\1dt3-\-ox ~S . \DC-:S ~O\q\\Y{3 \ 

Pr\ly -ed \J \'l i-\-

1.-\ D \ \=VV\ '3loq W.Of\n 

T D-NQ ~O('L ;I)C.1 (Dj{j 

o 

~ Addressee 

C • .Qate of Delivery 

J ~ 8"-/..) 

O. IsdeliveryJddress different from item 11 0 Yes 

If YES, enter delivery address below: . 0 No 

3. SelJliite1Yfje 

EJ'Certffied Mail€! D Priority Mail Express'" 

o Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise 

o Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery 

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 

--~~~--~----------~----~~ 2. Article Number 7013 2250 0002 2038 8629 

(Transferfrom servie' ~j, 

, PSForm3811,July2013 Domestic Return Receipt
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7


                               FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO
                       APPENDIX A TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                        BETWEEN STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
                                       AND
                            G. KENNETH STEPHENS, JR.

                  BASE SALARY, BONUS COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

1.       Effective February 1, 2002, Employee's title(s) shall be Senior Vice
         President and President - Eastern Division, Employee's Base Salary
         shall be $275,000, and Employee's principal work location shall be the
         Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.

2.       For Fiscal Year 2002 ("FY 2002"), the Employee shall be eligible to
         receive a Bonus of up to $268,750.

         [Items 2(a) through (c) and 3 are unaffected by this Supplement.]


                                  Agreed to and accepted:

                                  STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.


Date: April __, 2002              By:
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                            James W. McFarland
                                      Compensation Committee Chairman


                                  EMPLOYEE:


Date: April __, 2002
                                  ------------------------------------------
                                        G. Kenneth Stephens, Jr.
#### Joseph Snelling, Resp't, *v.*The Brooklyn *&*N. Y. Ferry Co., App’lt.

*Chas. J. Patterson,*for resp’t; *James & Thos. H. Troy,*for app’lt.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 184.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5945 

To amend title III of the Social Security Act to allow States to drug test 

applicants for unemployment compensation to ensure they are ready to work. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 

Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. REED, 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. HOLDING, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. 

RICE of South Carolina, and Mr. ROSKAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title III of the Social Security Act to allow States 

to drug test applicants for unemployment compensation 

to ensure they are ready to work. 

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 ‘‘Ready to Work Act 

5 of 2016’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5945 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT ALLOWING STATES TO MAKE DETER2 MINATIONS REGARDING OCCUPATIONS THAT 

3 REGULARLY CONDUCT DRUG TESTING. 

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 303(l)(1)(A)(ii) of the 

5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(l)(1)(A)(ii)) is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘as determined under regulations issued by 

7 the Secretary of Labor’’ and inserting ‘‘as determined by 

8 the State’’. 

9 (b) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY OF EXISTING REG10 ULATIONS.—The final rule issued by the Department of 

11 Labor on August 1, 2016, entitled ‘‘Federal-State Unem12 ployment Compensation Program; Middle Class Tax Relief 

13 and Job Creation Act of 2012 Provision on Establishing 

14 Appropriate Occupations for Drug Testing of Unemploy15 ment Compensation Applicants’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 50298), 

16 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### First National Bank & Trust Company of Mamaroneck et al., Respondents, *v.*Mamaroneck Hotel Corporation et al., Defendants; Reuben P. Brewer et al., as Executors of Burton C. Meighan, Sr., Deceased, et al., Defendants-Respondents, and Aimee Underhill, as Executrix of Walter Underhill, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant.

Argued May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Monroe J. Cahn*for motion.

*Hurlbert McAndrew*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, on the ground that it does not appear that any constitutional question is directly involved.
----

|   | (i) | Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Date: January 16, 2013 |  /s/ Peter Breese        |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                         | Peter Breese                  |
|                         | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                         | (principal executive officer) |
#### Albert P. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55058

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

*713Albert P. Wilson, Pro Se

Jon S. Allin, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Albert P. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve a summons and complaint in a timely manner. *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan),*253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wilson’s claims against defendants Garcia, Dupler, and Irvin because Wilson failed to show good cause as to why he did not timely serve these defendants. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service, and explaining that district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to serve “after notice to the plaintiff’); *In re Sheehan,*253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider Wilson’s contention that U.S. Marshal authorities improperly failed to serve the complaint because Wilson fails to point to anywhere in the district court ' record wheré this issue was raised, and we found no place where this issue was raised.

AFFIRMED.

**

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