alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Polaris  Income  Fund  I  (the
"Partnership")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  September  30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Stephen E. Yost,  Chief Financial  Officer of Polaris  Investment  Management
Corporation,  the General Partner of the  Partnership,  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 result of  operations of the
Partnership.


POLARIS AIRCRAFT INCOME FUND I
(Registrant)
By: Polaris Investment Management Corporation,
    General Partner


By: /s/ Stephen E. Yost
    -------------------
    Stephen E. Yost
    Chief Financial Officer
    November 12, 2002
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 Quarterly Report of Synthetech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Gary Weber,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                                /s/ Gary A. Weber
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Gary A. Weber
                                                Vice President, Finance,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                November 5, 2003
Catherine DIAZ, Appellant, v. Jonathan VASQUEZ, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2018]

Kimberly H. Schultz of Kimberly H. Schultz, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Jonathan Vasquez, Broward, pro se.

Per Curiam.

*402Catherine Diaz (the wife) appeals from an order denying her motion for change of venue from Broward County, the husband's present county of residence where he filed his petition for dissolution of marriage, to Miami-Dade County, where the wife and the marital child currently reside. We reverse.

"The law is well settled in Florida that a cause of action for dissolution of marriage arises in the Florida county in which both parties last resided with a common intent to remain married." *Rakusin v. Rakusin* , 569 So.2d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Here, the parties last resided as husband and wife in the city of Hialeah, in Miami-Dade County. No basis for venue in Broward County has been shown. Accordingly, we reverse this cause and remand with instructions that venue be transferred to Miami-Dade County, Florida.

*Reversed.*

Gross, Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Initial Review Group; Subcommittee A—Cancer Centers.                              ( print page 14806)    

*Date:*                         April 30-May 1, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gail J. Bryant, MD, Scientific Review Officer, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., Room 8107, MSC 8328, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, (301) 402-0801,                         *gb30t@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 26, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-7308 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 19

- 1821

__________ LISA M. BROWN

v.
JA SON L. BROWN,

Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3

- 19

- cv - 00404 ) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

August 23, 2019 Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 26, 2019 )

___________ OPINION *

___________ PER CURIAM On March 7, 2019, Jason L. Brown commenced an action in the District Court by

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

filing a “notice of appeal in a civil case.” The matter was referred to a Magistrate Judge
who recommended that it be dismissed under the Rooker

- Feldman 1 doctrine because Brown was attempting to appeal from a state

- court judgment. 2 The District Court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Brown timely appealed.
We exercise de novo review over the question of subject

- matter jurisdiction.
PennMont Secs. v. Frucher , 586 F.3d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 2009) ; see also United States v. Apple MacPro Computer , 851 F.3d 238, 244 (3d Cir. 2017). W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We agree with the District Court that it lacked jurisdiction over Brown’s case

. In his brief on appeal, Brown makes clear that he is seeking review of a domestic

- relations

o rder entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County. 3 As the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, however, the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine strips federal courts of jurisdiction over controversies “that are essentially appeals from state

- court judg ments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. , 544 U.S. 280, 284

1 See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

2 Brown did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3 Based on the documents that Brown attached to his “notice of appeal in a civil case,” it appears that this judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania subsequently denied allocatur.3

(2005). Amendment would be futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we will affirm.
**Exhibit32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICEROF TRM CORPORATIONAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Rebecca J. Demy,Principal Accounting Officer of TRM Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifythat the accompanying Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the “Report”), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 
| Date:  November 14, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Rebecca  J. Demy          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | Rebecca J.  Demy              |
|                          |   | Principal  Accounting Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT
3.1



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 Grown Rogue International Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended
August 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ritwik
Uban, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the
    Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A
signed original 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.

|                          |                                         | 
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------- | 
|/s/
    J. Obie Strickler |                                        
|Name:                     | J. Obie Strickler                       | 
|Title:                    | President &
    Chief Executive Officer | 
|                          |                                         | 

Date:
January 15, 2019
<PAGE>   1


                        CONCURRENT COMPUTER CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                     PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
               (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   SEPTEMBER 30, 
                                                 1996       1995
                                                 ----       ----
<S>                                            <C>        <C>
Net income (loss)                              $(4,062)   $(3,632)
                                               
Weighted average number common shares           42,345     30,311

Increase in weighted average number of 
   common shares upon assumed exercise
   of stock options                               -          -
                                               -------    -------
Total                                           42,345     30,311

Net income (loss) per share                    $ (0.10)   $ (0.12)

</TABLE>


                                                                              16
Jonah PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1921

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 13, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Efrain MORAYA, aka Efrain Ely Morataya Almazan, aka Efrain Morataya, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71998, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided May 12, 2004.

*143Efrain Moraya, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell J.E. Verby, Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Efrain Moraya, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reconsider its earlier order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider its earlier denial of his motion to reopen his case to apply for adjustment of status as a derivative beneficiary under Section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43 (“NACARA”). The deadline for filing a motion to reopen under NACARA was September 11, 1998, and petitioner filed his motion to reopen on February 22, 2002, more than three years after the deadline. Because the petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely, and neither NACARA nor the implementing regulations contain any exception to the filing deadline for aliens who married NACARA-eligible spouses after the deadline, the BIA did not abuse its discretion. *See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 July 29, 2014

h0721

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2014

148946 & (16)(21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148946

COA: 318418

Saginaw CC: 12-037249-FH

MARK DESHAWN JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add an issue is GRANTED. The application 

for leave to appeal the December 13, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, 

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/15/2018 9:23:35 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
L.H., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-0892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN RE: George Martin GATES, IV

NO. 2018-B-0083

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

ORDER

Considering the "Motion to Remand" filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the disciplinary board for consolidation with the proceedings numbered 16-DB-088. After appropriate consideration of the consolidated matters, the board is directed to issue a single recommendation of discipline to this court encompassing all disciplinary matters involving respondent.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this _____ day of ___________________, 2018.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

245 

KA 14-01059 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WAYNE A. PRYCE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS.,

SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (CHRIS EAGGLESTON

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F.

Kocher, J.), rendered October 2, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree (Penal

Law § 215.56). Defendant’s contention that his plea was not

knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because he did not

personally recite the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty

is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea

allocution, and that contention is not preserved for our review

inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate

the judgment of conviction (see People v Loper, 118 AD3d 1394, 1394-

1395, lv denied 25 NY3d 1204; see also People v Rinker, 141 AD3d 1177,

1177, lv denied 28 NY3d 1030). This case does not fall within the

narrow exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in

the plea colloquy negates an essential element of bail jumping in the

second degree, raises a potential defense to that charge, or otherwise

casts doubt on defendant’s guilt (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662,

666-667; People v Brinson, 130 AD3d 1493, 1493, lv denied 26 NY3d

965). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. 

Defendant’s “monosyllabic responses to [County Court’s] questions did

not render the plea invalid” (People v Gordon, 98 AD3d 1230, 1230, lv

denied 20 NY3d 932 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lopez, 118

AD3d at 1395). Further, “ ‘there is no requirement that a defendant

personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime[] during the

plea colloquy, and, here, [t]he record establishes that defendant
-2- 245 

KA 14-01059 

confirmed the accuracy of [the court’s] recitation of the facts

underlying the crime’ ” (Gordon, 98 AD3d at 1230).

We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of the

agreed-upon sentence and conclude that it is without merit. 

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Stephen A. TOUMAJAN, Appellant, v. Donna L. TOUMAJAN, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2020

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

August 6, 2014

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2013-1561

SCRIPTPRO, LLC AND SCRIPTPRO USA, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Decided: August 6, 2014

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following change:

Page 2, line 7, change “were invalid” to --are invalid--.