alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A of Allied Security Holdings LLC (the‘‘Company’’) for the year endedDecember  31,  2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), William C. Whitmore, Jr., asChief Executive Officer of the Company, and William A. Torzolini, asChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. |

/s/William C. Whitmore, Jr.Name: William C. Whitmore,Jr.Title: Chairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficerDate: May  17,2006

/s/ William A. TorzoliniName:William A. TorzoliniTitle: Senior Vice President and ChiefFinancial OfficerDate: May  17,2006

----
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00786-CR

ENQU ZELEKE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1353854

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offense of possession of a 

controlled substance and sentenced to confinement for two years in the State Jail 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on March 26, 2013. No 

motion for new trial was filed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until 

August 9, 2013.
2

A defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed when the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal which complies with the requirements of 

Rule 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, 

a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. 

Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. 

Id.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 10.29

 

Amendment to

Transition Services and Separation Agreement and Mutual General Release

 

This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Transition Services and Separation Agreement and Mutual General Release entered into by and between Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) and Rob Solomon (“Solomon”) as of April 5, 2011 (the “Transition Agreement”) is being entered into by and between Groupon, Inc. and Rob Solomon (together, the “Parties”), effective July 25, 2011.

 

1.              Last Day of Employment

Section 1.2 of the Transition Agreement is hereby amended to provide that Solomon’s last day of employment with Groupon will be November 1, 2011 (the “Separation Date”).  From the date of this Amendment until the Separation Date, Solomon shall continue to provide the transitional duties as set forth in Section 1.2 of the Transition Agreement.

 

2.              Consideration

Groupon agrees to pay Solomon an amount equal to $500 per week from July 25, 2011 through the Separation Date in accordance with Groupon’s regular payroll schedule and less all appropriate federal and state income and employment taxes.  Solomon shall also be eligible for all employment benefits and reimbursement of expenses through the Separation Date unless he is earlier terminated for Cause (as such term is defined in the Transition Agreement) or resigns.

 

3.              Option Vesting and Exercise

As a clarification and not a modification of the Transition Agreement or any other agreement that may exist between Solomon and Groupon, the Parties agree that the attached Exhibit A accurately reflects number of options on Groupon common stock vested by Mr. Solomon as of July 25, 2011 (the “Options”).  The parties further agree that (a) notwithstanding Solomon’s continued employment at Groupon after July 25, 2011, Solomon is not entitled to any additional vesting of any options on Groupon common stock or any other consideration other than that set forth in this Amendment, and (b) all other terms of the Options shall remain as set forth in ThePoint.com, Inc. 2008 Stock Plan and any grant documents, notices of grant, and option agreements issued to Solomon thereunder.

 











 

4.              No Effect on Transition Agreement

The Parties agree that this Amendment and the extension of the Separation Date shall have no effect on any provision of the Transition Agreement except Section 1.2 and, except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Transition Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.

 

 

	
Agreed   and Acknowledged:
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Rob   Solomon
    	
 
    	
Groupon, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Rob Solomon
    	
 
    	
/s/   Bradley Downes
    
	
Date:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
30   Sept. 2011
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
Bradley   Downes
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
VP   Finance
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2485 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plastic laminate sheets consisting 

of layers of polyethylene film, polyethylene coextrusion copolymer of low 

density polyethylene and ethylene acrylic acid, and aluminum foil. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plastic laminate 

sheets consisting of layers of polyethylene film, polyethylene coextrusion copolymer of low density polyethylene and ethylene acrylic acid, and aluminum foil. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2485 IS

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PLASTIC LAMINATE SHEETS CON2 SISTING OF LAYERS OF POLYETHYLENE 

3 FILM, POLYETHYLENE COEXTRUSION CO4 POLYMER OF LOW DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 

5 AND ETHYLENE ACRYLIC ACID, AND ALU6 MINUM FOIL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Certain plastic laminate 

sheets consisting of layers of 

polyethylene film, polyethylene coextrusion copolymer of low density polyethylene and ethylene acrylic 

acid, and aluminum foil (provided for in subheading 

3920.10.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

13 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

14 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ACCEPTED

01-15-00045-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/28/2015 2:13:41 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/28/2015 2:13:41 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00021-CR

DAVID DUANE DUNIGAN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 32765CR

O P I N I O N

David Duane Dunigan filed his notice of appeal ninety-eight days after the court 

imposed sentence.1 Therefore, even though Dunigan timely filed a motion for new trial, 

the notice of appeal is untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). Because Dunigan’s notice 

of appeal is untimely and because he has not shown grounds for continuing the appeal, 

we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

1 The trial court imposed sentence on September 11, 2008. Dunigan filed his notice of appeal on 

December 18, 2008.
Dunigan v. State Page 2

The Clerk of this Court notified Dunigan that the appeal may be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction if he did not file a response showing grounds for continuing the 

appeal. Id. 44.3. Dunigan responded by filing a motion asking this Court to maintain 

the appeal on the Court’s docket or, in the alternative, to grant an extension of time to 

file the notice of appeal. We address the latter request first.

Any extension motion must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for 

filing the notice of appeal. Id. 26.3. Because Dunigan’s motion was filed more than two 

months after the notice of appeal was due, the motion is denied insofar as it seeks an 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See Thompson v. State, No. 02-05-00367-CR, 

2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9211, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 3, 2005, no pet.) (mem. 

op.); see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (interpreting 

former Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b)(2)).

Dunigan also cites Rule 44.3 and asks the Court to maintain the appeal on the 

docket because he has a meritorious ground for appeal and because counsel 

inadvertently miscalculated the deadline for the notice of appeal. Rule 44.3 provides, 

“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for 

formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a reasonable 

time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.” Id. 44.3. However, Rule 44.3 may 

not be used to enlarge the deadline for perfecting an appeal in a criminal case. See 

Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523 (interpreting former Rule of Appellate Procedure 83).

Both Dunigan’s notice of appeal and his motion for an extension of time to file 

the notice of appeal are untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of 
Dunigan v. State Page 3

jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522-23; Thompson, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9211, at 

*2-3.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 25, 2009

Publish

[CR25]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**211 CA 15-00802**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

DARA R. CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ARLYN C. CUNNINGHAM, JR., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

------------------------------------------------ IN THE MATTER OF DARA R. CUNNINGHAM, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V
ARLYN C. CUNNINGHAM, JR., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND PETITIONERAPPELLANT.
J. SCOTT PORTER, SENECA FALLS, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
TIFFANY M. SORGEN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CANANDAIGUA.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Yates County (Dennis F. Bender, A.J.), dated July 24, 2014. The order, inter alia, awarded sole legal custody of the parties’ child to defendant-respondent and dismissed plaintiff-petitioner’s family offense petition. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal insofar as it challenges the award of custody to defendant-respondent is unanimously dismissed, and the order is affirmed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Cunningham v Cunningham ([appeal No. 3] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 25, 2016]).

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN the INTEREST OF J.K-T., a child.

K.S., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian Ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-2400

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2   NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.   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 Network Equipment Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 25, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Wagenseller, Vice President, and 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 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.  August 3, 2010    /s/ DAVID WAGENSELLER David Wagenseller Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Dwayne KING, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1860

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Innovative Card
Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: March 17, 2006                   By: /s/ Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                          --------------------------------------
                                       Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                       Chief Financial Officer
2

2. We are astounded and incensed that there is no sense of urgency reflected in the AOC and SOW to address

even the existing, known contamination problem. In the early 2000s, the Navy already found petroleum stains in

the bedrock under 19 of the 20 tanks, which indicated leaking. In 2014, there was a 27,000 gallon leak of jet fuel

from one of the tanks. As stated by the Board of Water Supply in their testimony dated June 18, 2015, "the AOC

needs to require clean‐up of the contamination that is presently in the groundwater and rocks underneath the

tanks to reduce the amount available for migration to those parts of the aquifer that are still

uncontaminated." Immediate action must be required. Why must we wait for the contamination to worsen

before taking action, when it will be too late?  

3. The AOC should not provide for studies and pilot programs of unknown duration to be conducted before

further remediation action can proceed. Historically, bureaucratic government studies and pilots invariably

result in lengthy, years‐long delays and ultimately add to overall costs for taxpayers. The Board of Water Supply

testified that the AOC administrative record indicates that past studies were already done and identified

potential improvements which have yet to be acted upon. Furthermore, it appears that the Navy already had

similar experiences with upgrading tank structures in 1998 and 2008, which must have been preceded by studies

(See SOW, page 1). Therefore, the AOC should first state whether or not such past studies were, in fact,

previously done and why recommendations presented in those studies were not implemented.  

4. While the Department of Health would be a signatory for the AOC, would that then bind the Board of Water

Supply and its customers to the AOC as well, and preclude the parties from seeking reimbursement for expenses

that may be incurred: (1) to clean‐up contaminated water and (2) to pursue alternatives to take the place of

contaminated water that is deemed prohibitive to treat? If so, then we feel that the Board of Water Supply

needs to be a party to the AOC discussions/development to represent the Oahu community's interests. In

addition, federal reimbursement of expenses for clean‐up and water source alternatives need to be required

in the AOC. Responsibility for increased costs must be borne by the party responsible for causing the problem,

and not by innocent Oahu citizens.  

Finally, we object to the short 30‐day time period for your agency to receive comments on such a critical matter. As

pointed out by the Board of Water Supply in their testimony dated June 18, 2015, not all information was made

available until midway through the comment period. Therefore, we urge that an extension be granted, until July 31,

2015, to allow the Board of Water Supply and concerned citizens who are only now becoming aware of the issue to

provide comments, and help reassure that this is a meaningful, transparent process.  

We respectfully ask that you consider our comments and recommendations. Thank you.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, B. Fred Oden, III, President, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Resource
Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: February 13, 2008

By:/s/ B. Fred Oden, III
------------------------
B. Fred Oden, III
President
Exhibit
      32.1





**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 China Health Holding, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Julianna Lu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





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.







April
      2,
      2007





_ */s/
      Julianna Lu* _________________


Julianna
      Lu


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial


Officer