alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

 

**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, C. William Hosler, the Chief Financial Officer, of Catellus Development Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that: 

 

(i)  the Company’s annual report on Form 10-Kfor the year ending December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

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

 

Date: March 12,2004 

 

/S/    C. WILLIAM HOSLER        

                                                                                                       

**C. William Hosler**

 

THISCERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AND IS NOT BEING FILED AS PART OF THE REPORT OR AS A SEPARATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT. 

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEENPROVIDED TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.1

    Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                             Pursuant to Section 906
           of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Centennial Specialty Foods Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
          2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
          Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /s/  JEFFREY R. NIEDER
                                         ----------------------
                                         Jeffrey R. Nieder
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         April 28, 2004

                                         /s/  DOUGLAS L. EVANS
                                         ---------------------
                                         Douglas L. Evans
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         April 28, 2004
Raymond PADILLA, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4969

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 10, 2018

Raymond Padilla, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Roberts, Wetherell, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certification of principal executive officer: 

 

I, R. Christopher Hoehn-Saric, certify, as required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of eSylvan, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport 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 periodcovered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 thisquarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report;and 

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the registrant’s board of directors (which performs theequivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

November 13, 2003
**Exhibit
32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 RULE 13a - 14(b)
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 Smart Online, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Scott
Whitaker, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certifies, 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.
 
 **/s/
Scott Whitaker**
 Scott
Whitaker
 Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
 May 15,
2005
 
 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.
J.R., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
PricewaterhouseCoopers 

	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                                                                                                                                125 High Street	

	Boston MA 02110

  Telephone (617) 530 5000

  Facsimile (617) 530 5001

	

Report of Independent Accountants

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder

Of GMAC Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about GMAC Mortgage Corporation and its subsidiaries' (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards ("standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP)**as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 included in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit I). Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion about management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 24, 2004
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical International Technology, Inc.
      (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Karim Menassa, President and Principal 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 result of operations of the
                Company.









/s/
       Karim
      Menassa


Karim
      Menassa


President
      and Principal Executive Officer





July
      16,
      2007
Neil LONDON, Appellant, v. John TEMERIAN, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1092

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 7, 2018]

Troy William Klein of Law Office of Troy W. Klein, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Shai Ozery of Posada, Taddeo, Dietiker, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Neil London appeals an order involuntarily dismissing his complaint and an order denying his verified motion to set aside the dismissal. We reverse.

The dismissal was entered as a result of London's counsel's failure to comply with the pre-trial order and failure to appear at calendar call. Thereafter, counsel moved to set aside the dismissal, explaining that he was unaware of the pre-trial order because of the death of his staff person. After a hearing, the motion was denied.

Although "[d]ismissing a complaint as a sanction for failing to appear is within the trial court's discretion.... a dismissal is too severe a sanction for failure to attend a pre-trial conference 'absent a record showing of willful or intentional disregard of a court order.' " *Adlington v. Fla. Parole Com'n* , 824 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (quoting *Garland v. Dixie Ins. Co.* , 495 So.2d 785, 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ). Accordingly, this court has long held that the trial court must expressly find willful noncompliance with or deliberate disregard of a court order before dismissing an action for noncompliance, and must include such a finding in the order of dismissal:

> "An order dismissing a complaint as a sanction must 'contain an explicit finding of willful noncompliance.' " *Carpenter v. McCarty* , 810 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (quoting *Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Tubero* , 569 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990) ); *see also**Adlington v. Florida Parole Com'n* , 824 So.2d 256, 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing *Lenfestey v. U.S. Balloon Corp* ., 699 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ). The order granting dismissal with prejudice must include an explicit finding of willfulness, even when the lower court cites, with specificity, substantial facts that would support a finding of willfulness. *Carpenter* , 810 So.2d at 1054.

*Young v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co.* , 80 So.3d 1147, 1147-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Because the orders on appeal do not contain a finding that appellant or his counsel willfully failed to comply with the court order, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct further proceedings.

Damoorgian, Klingensmith, JJ., and Kanner, Daniel J., Associate Judge, concur.
Sergio Winston Archer HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1106

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 21, 2018

Sergio Winston Archer Henderson, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### ARBOLINO v. SHAUGHNESSY, District Director et al. SESSA v. SHAUGHNESSY, District Director et al.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 13, 1953.

Samuel Resnicoff, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City (Nathan Skolnik, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

Before L. HAND and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Since the defendants have no duty but to direct the plaintiff to report in Texas, and that is merely a transmission of the order of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization in Washington, the action is within the decisions of the Supreme Court in Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512 [72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534] and of this court in Reeber v. Rossel, 2 Cir., 200 F.2d 334. In Williams v. Fanning, 332 U.S. 490 [68 S.Ct. 188, 92 L.Ed. 95], the Postmaster was himself stopping the receipt of the magazine; an injunction against that was complete relief.

Motion denied.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5810 

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude certain cotton 

futures contracts from coverage under such Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. WESTMORELAND (for himself, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. AUSTIN

SCOTT of Georgia, and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the United States Cotton Futures Act to exclude 

certain cotton futures contracts from coverage under 

such Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CERTAIN COTTON FUTURES CON4 TRACTS FROM COVERAGE UNDER UNITED 

5 STATES COTTON FUTURES ACT. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c)(1) of the United 

7 States Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15B(c)(1)) is amend8 ed— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5810 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘except that any cotton futures 

2 contract’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘except that— 

3 ‘‘(A) any cotton futures contract’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(B) any cotton futures contract that per7 mits tender of cotton grown outside of the 

8 United States is excluded from the coverage of 

9 this paragraph and section to the extent that 

10 the cotton grown outside of the United States 

11 is tendered for delivery under the cotton futures 

12 contract.’’. 

13 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub14 section (a) shall apply with respect to cotton futures con15 tracts entered into on or after the date of the enactment 

16 of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 729 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 729

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to exempt the National Institutes of Health from sequestration under 
 section 251A for fiscal year 2013, and to reduce the sequestration by 
                      the amount of the exemption.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2013

 Mr. McDermott (for himself and Mr. Higgins) introduced the following 
        bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to exempt the National Institutes of Health from sequestration under 
 section 251A for fiscal year 2013, and to reduce the sequestration by 
                      the amount of the exemption.

    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 ``Medical Research Protection Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. NIH EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 251A SEQUESTRATION FOR FY 2013.

    Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(12) NIH exemption.--No sequestration ordered by the 
        President under this section for fiscal year 2013 shall apply 
        to the National Institutes of Health (75-9915-0-1-552).''.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN SECTION 251A SEQUESTRATION FOR FY 2013 BY THE 
              AMOUNT OF THE NIH EXEMPTION.

    Section 251A(3) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (D), by striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the 
end of subparagraph (E), and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(F) for fiscal year 2013, further reducing the 
                amount calculated under subparagraphs (A) through (D) 
                by the amount that the National Institutes of Health 
                would have been reduced if it were not exempt from 
                sequestration.''.
                                 <all>
```
Avery SUTTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3047

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Arie Cohen, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CardioNet, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

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

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 13, 2008            |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
| /s/ Arie Cohen                        |   |
| Arie Cohen                            |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |   |

 

----