alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Cortelco Systems Puerto
Rico, Inc. ("Registrant") I, Sergio Moren, Chief Executive Officer of
Registrant, certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Registrant.



Date: October 29, 2002                    /s/ Sergio Moren
                                             -----------------------------------
                                              Sergio Moren
                                              Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Cortelco Systems Puerto
Rico, Inc. ("Registrant") I, Francisco Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer of
Registrant , certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Registrant.



Date:  October 29, 2002                 /s/  Francisco Sanchez
                                           -------------------------------------
                                             Francisco Sanchez
                                             Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Renewal of the Charter of the Federal Advisory Committee on 
Insurance

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

SUMMARY: The charter for the Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance 
(FACI) has been renewed for a two-year period beginning June 10, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jigar Gandhi, Senior Insurance 
Regulatory Policy Analyst, Federal Insurance Office, Department of the 
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 1410 MT, Washington, DC 
20220, at (202) 622-3220 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who 
have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by 
calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given under 41 CFR 102-
3.65, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
Appendix), that the FACI has been renewed for an additional two years 
beginning June 10, 2021. The purpose of the FACI is to present advice 
and recommendations to the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) in performing 
its duties and authorities. The advice and recommendations may cover 
specific or general insurance topics, processes, studies, and/or 
reports. The duties of the FACI shall be solely advisory and shall 
extend only to the submission of advice and recommendations, which 
shall be non-binding, to FIO. The FACI meets on a periodic basis, and 
its membership is balanced to include a cross-section of representative 
views of state and non-government persons having an interest in the 
duties and authorities of FIO.

    Dated: July 1, 2021.
Steven Seitz,
Performing the Delegable Duties of Assistant Secretary for Financial 
Institutions.
[FR Doc. 2021-14444 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P
#### William S. Wetmore, Respondent, v. Janette Pirsson, Appellant.

(Argued May 6, 1890;

decided June 3, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made December 11, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*Martin J. Keogh*for appellant.

*D. Cady Herrick*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 7.2


                               GROHE HOLDING GMBH

                   COMPUTATION OF COST OF SALES TO SALES RATIO

                          US GAAP FINANCIAL INFORMATION




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          Year             Year             Year
                                                         ended            ended             ended
                                                      December 31,     December 31,     December 31,
                                                          2000             2001             2002
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------

<S>                                                      <C>              <C>               <C>
Cost of sales                                            512,163          512,549           517,321

Divided by sales                                         855,474          880,781           898,262

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


Cost of sales to sales ratio                               59.9%            58.2%             57.6%
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2:

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF JUNIATA VALLEY FINANCIAL CORP.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, that:

o    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

o    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the company's financial condition and results of operation.


-----------------------------------
Linda L. Engle, Executive VP & CFO


Dated:
        ---------------------------
#### Joseph T. Madden et al., Appellants, v Town of Kent et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from water contamination, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Beisheim, J.), dated August 19,1983, which, upon the motion of the defendants Putnam County and Putnam County Board of Health to dismiss the complaint as against them for nonjoinder of the State of New York as a necessary party, dismissed the complaint as against all defendants “without prejudice to the right of the plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the defendants in the Court of Claims”.

Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. *(See, Baisley v Town of Kent,*111 AD2d 299.) Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
(55 Misc. Rep. 330.)

#### MANHEIMER v. GUDAT.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New "York County.

July 15, 1907.)

X/ICENSES—POWEE TO REVOKE.

An instrument leasing the side wall of defendant’s property to plaintiff for advertising purposes “until said wall is obstructed so it is not available for advertising purposes” grants a mere license, revocable at the owner’s option.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Licenses, § 121.]

Action by Solomon Manheimer against William Gudat. Motion for preliminary injunction denied.

William Klein, for plaintiff.

Alfred T. Davison, for defendant.

DAYTON, J.

The instrument relied upon contemplates the “lease” •of the side wall of defendant’s property on East Thirty-Fourth street to the plaintiff for advertising purposes, “until said wall is obstructed so it is not available for advertising purposes.” A similar agreement Fas been explicitly held by the Appellate Term of this Department not to be a lease. Goldman v. New York Adv. Co., 29 Misc. Rep. 133, 60 N. Y. Supp. 275. The court in that case, however, found it unnecessary to decide, for the determination of the appeal, what the exact nature of the instrument was; intimating that it might be an easement, a simple contract between the parties, or a license. The instrument herein cannot be regarded as an easement; for, as was said in Greenwood Lake & P. J. R. R. Co. v. N. Y. & G. L. R. R. Co., 134 N. Y. 439, 31 N. E. 875:

> “An easement is a right without profit, created by grant or prescription, -which the owner of one estate may exercise in or over the estate of another .for the benefit of the former.”

*462Nor can this agreement be considered as a simple contract between the parties, enforceable in a court of equity; for it is evident that the period is too indefinite. The condition relied upon for the termination of the agreement, to wit, when “said wall is obstructed so it is not available for advertising purposes,” might never occur. To hold that such a contract was continuously enforceable in a court of equity, therefore, would be to incumber the realty with a restriction which might defeat its sale and prevent the owner from giving a marketable title. It would certainly be against the policy of the law to burden the land with a restriction founded upon an agreement not understood. Crosdale v. Lanigan, 129 N. Y. 610, 29 N. E. 824, 26 Am. St. Rep. 551.

Since the instrument is not a lease, and cannot be regarded as an easement, nor as a simple contract between the parties, it must be held to be a mere license, and as such, for the reasons above indicated, is revocable at the option of the owner. Crosdale v. Lanigan, supra. Such being the case, although it may seem a hardship upon the plaintiff that he may not be allowed to continue under what he evidently deems an advantageous agreement, he must be regarded as having knowledge of its uncertain duration under the law, and so to have assumed the risk that the so-called lease might be terminated at any time upon the exercise by the owner of his option to revoke the license.

Motion denied, without costs.
#### In re LODER. In re LEAVITT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

In the matter of Noah Loder and in the matter of Clarence A. Leavitt. No opinions. Respondents disbarred. Settle orders on notice.
#### WALBAUM, Respondent, v. LOCKHART, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 28, 1912.)

Action by Henry C. Walbaum against James Lockhart. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00235-CR

Mark Lagrada Canete, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-99-0652-S, HONORABLE CURT F. STEIB, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Mark Lagrada Canete was placed on community supervision after being

convicted of burglary of a habitation on a plea of guilty. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (West Supp. 

2002). His supervision was revoked after he admitted several of the violations alleged in the motion to 

revoke. 

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of 
counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right to examine the appellate 

record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel=s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to 

withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: August 30, 2002

Do Not Publish
#### SYMMERS v. CARROLL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Douglas Symmers against Howard Carroll and others. No opinion. Motion granted. Question certified. Order filed. See, also, 134 N. Y. Supp. 170.
Exhibit 31                  Rule 13a-14(d) Certification

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Thomas G. Lehmann, a First Vice President of Washington Mutual
Mortgage Securities Corp., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WAMU MORTGAGE
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-S2;

     2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations
under that agreement; and

     5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or
similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:


None


Dated: March 29, 2005
                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     First Vice President
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Distinguished Lecture





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

News (1)headline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

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 AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Groscost, 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ Jeffrey Groscost                                           |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Jeffrey Groscost                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | President and Principal Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | March 30, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
#### TURNER, Appellant, v. QUILLIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Catherine D. Turner against Helen Elizabeth Quillin and. others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SONYA PRIVETTE-JAMES,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (UNIVERSITY OF 

PENNSYLVANIA),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 169 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 10.22











[COPYTELE, INC. LETTERHEAD]






September 9, 2010








Videocon Industries Limited


2nd Floor, Fort House, D.N. Road


Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (INDIA)


Attention:
Venugopal N. Dhoot, DirectorNaveen Mandhana, Sr. Vice President





Dear Sirs:





With respect to the installments of the Technology Transfer Fee scheduled to be paid by February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010, under the Amended and Restated Technology License Agreement between Videocon Industries Limited (“Videocon”) and CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”), dated May 16, 2008 (the “License Agreement”), CopyTele hereby waives the February 16, 2009, November 16, 2009 and August 16, 2010 due dates for such installment payments on the condition (i) that Videocon make an additional payment of such installments of $300,000 no later than November 1, 2010, and (ii) that Videocon and CopyTele agree upon a mutually acceptable payment schedule for the balance of such installments prior to December 15, 2010.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties thereto.





Sincerely,COPYTELE, INC.By:
/s/ Denis A. KrusosDenis A. KrusosChairman and C.E.O.