alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lisa Gopalakrishnan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                         |  | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date: March 31, 2008 |  | /s/ LISA GOPALAKRISHNAN |  | 
|                     |  | Lisa Gopalakrishnan     |  | 
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K 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.
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

04-7112

FRANK L. HENDERSON, Claimant-Appellant,

v. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

__________ ________________ DE CIDED: January 14, 2005

__________________________ Before NEWMAN, MAYER *, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM. Frank L. Henderson (“Henderson”) appeals the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which affirmed the B oard of Veterans Appeals’ (“board”) decision denying He nderson’s allegations of cl ear and unmistakable error (“CUE”). Henderson v. Principi , No. 02-907 (Vet. App. Mar. 10, 2004). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

________________________ * Haldane Robert Mayer vacated the pos ition of Chief Judge on December 24, 2004.We review the judgment of the Veterans Court pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292( a ),
which limit s our reconsiderat ion t o questions of law. See Herndon v. Principi , 311 F.3d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We may review a challe nge to a factual determination or a challenge to a law or regulation as app lied to the f a cts of Henderson’s appeal only to the extent that it pres ents a c onstitutional issue. Se e 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) (2000); Helfer v. West , 174 F.3d 1332, 1335 (F ed. Cir. 1999) . Henderson, a Korean W a r veteran, has pursued a claim for compensable disabilit y resulting fr om a burn sustained to the back of his right hand in 1951. In 1960, the Regional Office (“RO”) g r anted service connection for his burn. The RO and the board have r epeatedly denied his
appea ls for a compen sable disab ility rating. Hend erson now ass e rts that the decis ion s were the result of CUE because the RO and board did not properly consider his medical records, and that the board’s evidentiary determinations violated his right to due process. Henderson’s claim is purely factual, raises no cognizable due process issue, and, therefore, is not appropriate for disposition by this court. Se e Helfer , 174 F.3d at
1335-36.

04-7112 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          19,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (62,100)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,683,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                      1,639,100
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,683,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
EX-34.7
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG
Quality In Everything We Do

Ernst & Young LLP
901 E. Cary Street Suite 1000
Richmond, VA 23219

Phone (804) 344-6000
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors
SunTrust Bank


We have examined management's assertion included in the accompanying report of
Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
SunTrust Bank (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing
platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007. Refer to management's assertion for the asset backed transactions
covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in
all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


March 6, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12350]




-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

401(k)Plan and ESOP of United States Trust Company of New York; 
Change in Bank Control Notice

Acquisition of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificant listed below has applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on notices are set forth in 
paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notice is available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notice has been accepted for 
processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices of 
the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in 
writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for the notice or to the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than 
June 2, 1995.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (William L. Rutledge, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045:

    1. 401(k)Plan and ESOP of United States Trust Company of New York, 
New York, New York; to acquire 24.9 percent of the voting shares of New 
USTC Holdings Corporation, New York, New York, and thereby indirectly 
acquire New U.S. Trust Company of New York, New York, New York; U.S. 
Trust Company of California, Los Angeles, California; U.S. Trust 
Company of Texas, Dallas, Texas; and U.S. Trust Company of Florida 
Savings Bank, Palm Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 1995.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-12350 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### LOEWENFIELD et al., Appellants, v. SCHROEDER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October, 25, 1907.)

Action by Pineus Loewenfield and another against Wilhelmina Schroeder. A. Pfeiffer, for appellants. T. F. Keogh, for respondent.

No opinion. Order modified, by striking out paragraph 3 thereof, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. Order filed.
Youth Financial Education 

Luke W. Reynolds

Chief, Outreach and Program Development

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Role of Financial Education

 GAO findings

 FDIC initiatives demonstrate that welldesigned financial education programs 

can have a positive impact on 

consumers’ ability to make sound 

choices

 Experiential-based approaches are 

particularly promising for young people
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Money Smart Program

 Curricula for:

 Elementary School students (ages 5-8)

 Young Adults (ages 12-20)

 Adults

 Older Adults

 Small Businesses

 Implementation resources:

 Quarterly newsletter

 Train-the-Trainers

 Alliance
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Money Smart Features

Easy to Teach

Easy to Learn

Flexible – A la carte approach

Designed for the Un-banked and Underbanked

Scalable for more sophisticated consumers

No licensing fee or copyright restrictions

Available in multiple languages

Available in multiple media formats

www.fdic.gov/moneysmart
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

FDIC’s Role

 Conduct outreach to promote the 

curriculum, such as to teachers

 Distribute the curriculum

 Provide technical assistance, 

including linking sites interested in 

delivering financial education with 

potential instructors

 Teach Train-the-Trainer classes

 Publications
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Ways for Banks to Work with 

Schools

 Ideas in Financial Institution Letter 80-

2010 include:

 Classroom instruction

 After-school programs

 In collaboration with youth organizations

 Subject-matter expert for educators

 Hosting a field trip

 Facilitating or providing support for in-school 

student savings programs
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Many Banks Work with Schools 

to Provide Financial Education
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Opportunities

 Supporting K-12 teachers in having the 

knowledge and tools to deliver financial 

education

 Giving parents the tools and 

confidence to effectively deliver
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

CONTACT INFORMATION

Luke W. Reynolds

Chief, Outreach & Program Development

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection

LuReynolds@fdic.gov

(703) 254-1045

www.fdic.gov/moneysmart

www.fdic.gov/consumernews
Billy MAY, aka Billy Frank May, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7248.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JUSTIN CEPHUS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-198

)

JOHN E. MARTIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the complaint filed by

Justin Cephus, a pro se prisoner, on June 9, 2014. This is a Bivens

action alleging that his four federal criminal defense attorneys in

United States v. Cephus, 2:09-cr-43 (N.D. Ind. filed March 5, 2009)

“refuse to provide my client file.” DE 1 at 3. “A document filed

pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,

however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). Nevertheless, the court must review prisoner complaints

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

“Actions under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 and those under . . . 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), are

identical save for the replacement of a state actor (§ 1983) by a

federal actor (Bivens).” Bieneman v. Chicago, 864 F.2d 463, 469

(7th Cir. 1988) (parallel citations omitted). “In order to state a

claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants
deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the

defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469

F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus, to state a claim in a Bivens

action, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant deprived him

of a federal constitutional right while acting under color of

federal law. 

However, a criminal defense attorney, even an appointed public

defender, does not act under color of state law. Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981). So too, a criminal defense attorney

does not act under color of federal law. Therefore, Cephus has not

stated a Bivens claim and this case must be dismissed. 

Though it is usually necessary to permit a plaintiff the

opportunity to file an amended complaint when a case is dismissed

sua sponte, see Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2013),

that is unnecessary where the amendment would be futile. Hukic v.

Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[C]ourts

have broad discretion to deny leave to amend where . . . the

amendment would be futile.”) Such is the case here because no

amendment could cure the fact that these defendants were not acting

under color of federal law. 

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DATED: June 10, 2014 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-2-
| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: January 31, 2011 | By:  | /s/ Yao-Ting Su                                                       |
|------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |      | Yao-Ting SuChief Executive and Financial Officer(Principal executive and financial officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|                   |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Anastasia Nyrkovskaya, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A of FORM Holdings Corp.;



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.





Dated: May 1, 2017





| | /s/ Anastasia Nyrkovskaya                                     
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | Anastasia Nyrkovskaya                                         
| | Chief Financial Officer                                       
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00939-WHA (JSC)

ORDER REGARDING SUR-REPLY 

REQUEST

Defendants Uber and Ottomotto have asked to file a four-page sur-reply in support of their 

opposition to Waymo’s motion to compel. Without subscribing to Defendants’ assertion that 

certain arguments should have been made in the original motion to compel, Defendants’ request is 

granted in part. The sur-reply must be limited to the issues raised in Defendants’ request, shall not 

exceed four pages, and shall be filed on or before Friday, May 19, 2017. Further, Defendants are 

not permitted to submit any new evidence in support of their sur-reply. Waymo may orally 

respond to Defendants’ arguments at the hearing on May 25, 2017.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 456 and 457.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit
      32.2





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**








I,
      Dennis
      M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; 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:
                    August 9,
                    2007
                By:
                /s/
                  Dennis M. McGrathDennis
                    M. McGrathChief
                    Financial
                    Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





E-32.2
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. OSCAR RENE MONJARAZ-PINTO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 11-10620D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03612-DCBJJM-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2013 ** San Francisco, California Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Defendant Oscar Rene Monjaraz-Pinto appeals his conviction for illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and the resulting sentence of 63 months’ imprisonment. We affirm. 

# FILED
JAN 23 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 1. The district court did not err in holding that Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of the affirmative de fense of duress. Defendant’s fears of poor treatment by police and prison officials were not akin to persecutors who "figuratively held a gun to his head." United States v. Vasquez-Landaver , 527 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. As Defendant now concedes, the di strict court correctly applied the 16- level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. United States v. Flores-Mejia , 687 F.3d 1213, 1215–16 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bonilla-Montenegro , 331 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). 3. Defendant’s sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was substantively reasonable. United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED.