alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Karen McCarthy, Respondent, v Thomas McCarthy, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 590]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Trainor, J.), entered May 5, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Rodriguez, H.E.), entered February 4, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied his application for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The father correctly contends that the Family Court mistakenly read the Hearing Examiner’s order as temporarily suspending his child support obligation until he was able to return to work, when in fact it merely suspended enforcement of a prior child support order, and permitted the accumulation of arrears during the father’s period of disability. Nevertheless, we affirm the Family Court’s order denying the father’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, which denied his petition for a downward modification of child support. Although a petition for downward modification of child support may be granted when a party loses his or her job due to an injury, it may be denied when the moving party has the ability to provide support through some other type of employment *(see Matter of Madura v Nass,*304 AD2d 579 [2003]). Here, although there was sufficient evidence to establish that the father was currently physically unable to return to his work as a security manager, there was no medical evidence that he was also unable to perform other work. Accordingly, the father was not entitled to a downward modification of child support. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8261.

#### Perez *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
13.2





Certification
by the Chief Financial Officer


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




In
connection with the Annual Report of Highway Holdings Limited (the “Company”) on
Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Po Fong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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:
June 22, 2009




/s/ Po FongPo
      FongChief
      Financial Officer
# Former DLA Distribution Aide-de-Camp recognized with award

/ Published July 11, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Army Capt. Mary K. Cloninger was recognized during a brief award ceremony June 22, at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Headquarters.Cloninger was aide-de-camp to former DLA Distribution commander Maj. Gen. Keith D. Reventlow from July 2021 to July 2022.

In recognition of her skillful planning and management of the day-to-day mission requirements, she was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal.

Her proven communication, planning and organizational skills enabled her to independently coordinate numerous command level conferences and meetings. An invaluable member of the DLA Distribution team, she maintained an open flow of communication with the commander’s staff, the distribution centers, and with the staffs of external organizations.

She confronted the challenges posed from the COVID-19 pandemic as the command incurred significantly reduced manning due to the heightened health protection condition measures. Her tireless dedication and concentrated efforts resulted in success for the commanding general and DLA Distribution as a whole.

                Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Keith D. Reventlow shakes hands with Capt. Mary Cloninger upon receiving  her Joint Service Commendation Medal award. Reventlow, former Commander of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, gave comments prior to Cloninger receiving her medal.                            Former DLA Distribution Aide-de-Camp recognized with award                            Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Keith D. Reventlow shakes hands with Capt. Mary Cloninger upon receiving  her Joint Service Commendation Medal award. Reventlow, former Commander of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, gave comments prior to Cloninger receiving her medal.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Matthew MahoneyVIRIN: 220622-D-VQ057-0002
**Exhibit 13.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted), Peter A. J. Gardiner, the Executive Chairman of the Board ofDirectors of Zindart Limited (the “Company”), and Ken Fowler, the ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best ofhis knowledge:
     1. The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31,2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 13.1 (the “AnnualReport”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of theperiod covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Companyfor the period covered by the Annual Report.   /s/ Peter A. J. Gardiner /s/ Ken Fowler   Peter A. J. Gardiner Ken Fowler*Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors* *Chief Financial Officer*   Dated: August 19, 2004
#### Com. v. Bright

11/17/2015

374 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 450
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Anooraq
Resources Corporation (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)        the Annual Report on
Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the
Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
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:      July 13, 2006



|       | /s/
      Jeffrey Mason | 
|------ | ----------------------- | 
|       |                         | 
|By:    | Jeffrey R. Mason        | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer | 



This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this 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 accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
#### HSBC Bank USA, Respondent, v Anthony Ezugwu, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[64 NYS3d 539]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered April 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Anthony Ezugwu, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie that it complied with the notice terms of the subject mortgage by submitting an affidavit of plaintiff’s officer, who personally reviewed the records related to defendant’s loan, and averred that these records were made contemporaneously and in the regular course of business. They were thus properly relied upon as evidence *(see*CPLR 4518 [a]; *People v Cratsley,*86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). The officer further averred that, as per the bank’s regular practice, default notices were sent via first class and certified mail to the property address encumbered by the mortgage, and a P.O. box provided by defendant, as demonstrated by the record copies of the default notices stamped with tracking numbers, electronic screenshots of custodial activity indicating that the default notices were sent, and certified mail return receipts establishing that the default notice sent to defendant’s P.O. box was signed for and delivered.

Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition with his claim that he advised plaintiff of a different notice address. Not only did defendant fail to provide any details regard*547ing the notification, but plaintiff submitted defendant’s 2010 and 2011 tax returns, as well as defendant’s bank statement from after the date the default notices were sent, all of which recited the P.O. box as defendant’s address. Likewise, defendant’s bare denial of receipt was unavailing *(see Grogg v South Rd. Assoc., L.P.,*74 AD3d 1021, 1022 [2d Dept 2010]).

The court properly determined that plaintiff had standing to commence the foreclosure action. Among other proof, plaintiff established delivery and possession of the note by appending it to the complaint *(see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Umeh,*145 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur—Richter, J.R, Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Rivera 26

05/18/2016

690 EAL (2015)

26

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 500
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATIONSREQUIRED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350,I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that this QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 2, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Norbert E. Woodhams |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Norbert  E. Woodhams    |   |
| October  17, 2006       |   |

Solely for the purposes of complyingwith 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Financial Officer of PierreFoods, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 2,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Joseph W. Meyers |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Joseph W. Meyers     |   |
| October 17, 2006     |   |

 

30

----
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of August 13, 2006, based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: September 27, 2006 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Leonard R. Stein-Sapir,   Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer
No. 09-9685.

#### N. R., Petitioner v. New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services.

562 U.S. 842, 131 S. Ct. 70,

178 L. Ed. 2d 49,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5786.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

February 21, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00085-CR

IN RE MARTIN VASQUEZ, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1352006

M E M OR A N DU M OP I N I ON

On August 28, 2012, relator Martin Vasquez was convicted of failure to 

comply with sex offender registration requirements and sentenced to eight years in 

prison. On February 1, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this 
2

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator complains that his counsel on appeal is not effective and relator 

attempts to raise issues challenging his conviction.

Relator seeks post-conviction habeas relief. Although courts of appeals have 

jurisdiction over criminal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has 

jurisdiction over matters related to final post-conviction felony proceedings. Ater 

v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.

proceeding). This includes requests for habeas relief based on assertions of void 

convictions. See In re Altschul, 207 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, 

orig. proceeding) 

Because we do not have jurisdiction over the requested relief, the petition for 

writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           797,558
<SECURITIES>                                   4,577,824
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,455,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                     165,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,121,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10,412,921
<PP&E>                                         2,809,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,785,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                17,966,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,670,937
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         645,406
<OTHER-SE>                                    14,648,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  17,966,808
<SALES>                                        3,547,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,547,436
<CGS>                                          1,243,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,243,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,546,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  756,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                     257,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              499,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     499,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.08
        


</TABLE>
#### Richard Ferguson, Appellant, v Gregory F. Hauser et al., Respondents.

[66 NYS3d 278]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered June 2, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that his attorney committed legal malpractice, when he failed to advise plaintiff at the outset of the second arbitration proceeding that dissolution was the only viable option. The complaint shows that opposition to the second arbitration, rather than dissolution of the company, was one of several reasonable courses of action; thus, defendants’ conduct in opting to defend the claims in the second arbitration, which included breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, and conversion of the company’s assets, and which would affect plaintiff’s share, if any, of the distribution of the company’s assets, does not constitute malpractice *(Rosner v Paley,*65 NY2d 736 [1985]; *Rodriguez v Lipsig, Shapey, Manus & Moverman, P.C.,*81 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2011]). Similarly, defendants’ decision to assert as counterclaims in the second arbitration claims similar to those that plaintiff had unsuccessfully pursued in the first arbitration was a reasonable course of action, because it was merely an attempt to prevail on those issues before different arbitrators.

Moreover, plaintiff’s claim requires speculation about future events, and does not sufficiently establish that defendants proximately caused him ascertainable damages *(Brooks v Lewin,*21 AD3d 731, 734-735 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]). An earlier dissolution of the company would not in itself have averted the delays that plaintiff alleges caused his *426losses, since plaintiff still would have had to await the arbitration ruling. Although plaintiff suggests that dissolution of the company and sale of the underlying property need not have awaited a determination by the arbitrators, given the nature of his disputes with the co-owner of the company, it is unlikely that he and the co-owner would have agreed to a swift dissolution and sale.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 10-5364.

#### Kurt B. Williams, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 917, 131 S. Ct. 284,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7185.

178 L. Ed. 2d 187,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 252.
No. 10-5741.

#### James E. Baker, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 341,

178 L. Ed. 2d 222,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7561.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 987.
<PAGE>
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


The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.


Date:  August 14, 2003              Name: /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton
                                         -----------------------------
                                         Sheldon C. Fenton
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Acting Chief Financial Officer

                                       24
# DLA Distribution Susquehanna supervisors receive Active Assailant Training

/ Published July 19, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
During an Antiterrorism Executive Council meeting held in January 2022, the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania Commander, Army Col. Trent Conner, signed the Installation Active Assailant Plan. This plan provides a framework for increasing the awareness, education and preparedness levels for assigned personal and organizations. Of the requirements established, was the mandate for supervisors to receive specialized training on active shooter type events. Specifically, a supervisor is responsible for before, during and after an active shooter event. 

Different from a run-hide-fight training, this is a higher level of training specifically designed for supervisors and senior leaders. The first training session was given to the DDSP commander, senior leaders and division chiefs, who acted as the beta-test, and offered suggestions for improvements. The current version was then approved and is now available for any organization’s senior leaders and supervisors.

The training session offers discussion on workplace violence and prevention strategy, supervisory roles, threat assessment team process, a supervisor’s role in developing an Emergency Action Plan, reporting procedures, emergency notification and alerting protocols, after-action responsibilities and how to prepare and protect the force. RHF training is still available, and it is important to note, this new training is designed to increase awareness of the hazards and threats employees can expect to encounter and how to react and respond to these hazards and threats. Senior Leaders and supervisors have an integral role in achieving this goal.