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

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Loral Orion, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Townsend,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Richard J. Townsend
----------------------------
Richard J. Townsend
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003

                                       27
#### Norman Morett, Appellant, v Arthur J. Minasy et al., Respondents.

Order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 20, 1984, affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum of Justice Pantano at Special Term. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.5 

     FOURTH AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) dated as of November 30, 2009 (the
“Amendment Effective Date”) by and between ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and STEVEN
WILLIAMSON, an individual (“Holder”), to that
certain SECURED PROMISSORY
NOTE (the “Note”) dated as of May 2, 2005, as
amended by the Amendment dated May 1, 2008, the Second Amendment dated November
26, 2008 and the Third Amendment dated April 1, 2009. 

     The Company
and Holder have agreed to amend and modify the Note in accordance with the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth. Unless otherwise defined herein,
capitalized terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the
Note. 

     NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties, intending to be
legally bound, hereby agree to replace in its entirety Section 1 of the Note as
follows: 

(1) PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL. The Principal shall be payable in
annual installments of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE DOLLARS ($333,333) on the first
anniversary of the Issuance Date, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
SIXTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($366,667) on the second anniversary of the Issuance Date,
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000)
on December 1, 2008, THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($300,000) on December 1, 2010, and a final installment of SIX HUNDRED THIRTY THREE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($633,667) on March 1, 2011 (the
“Maturity Date”). 

Except to the extent amended hereby, the
Note remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and the
Interest Rate (as defined in the Note) will continue to be paid at the rate
prescribed in Section 2 of the Note. The terms and conditions of this Amendment
shall be construed together with the terms of the Note as a single agreement,
provided that, to the extent any terms and conditions of the Amendment are
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Note, the terms and conditions
of this Amendment shall govern.

     IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Parties as of the Amendment
Effective Date. 

	 	ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC.  
  
		 	 	  
				  
		By: 	/s/ 	Richard D. Kurtz  	 
				Richard D.
      Kurtz, 
				Chief
      Executive Officer  
				  
				  
				  
			/s/ 	Steven Williamson  	 
				STEVEN
      WILLIAMSON
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuantto**

**Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

                I,Hal M. Krisbergh, the Chief Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications,Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Form 10-QAof WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004(the “Form 10-QA”), fully complies withrequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-QAfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

                Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to WorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: | November 17, 2004 | /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH                           |
|--------|-------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |              | Hal M. Krisbergh,  Principal Executive Officer |

----
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Nikolas Antonopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.,certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact, or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periodspresented in this annual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  March 4, 2005 By:  /s/ *Nikolas Antonopoulos*   Nikolas Antonopoulos
# C_2019187EN.01004901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/49

---

Appeal brought on 26 March 2019 by Bena Properties Co. SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 January 2019 in Case T-412/16 Bena Properties v Council

(Case C-260/19 P)

(2019/C 187/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bena Properties Co. SA (represented by: E. Ruchat, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:

| — | Declare the appeal admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

| — | Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Bena Properties v Council, T-412/16; |
| --- | --- |

—

Accordingly, set aside the judgment of 16 January 2019, Bena Properties v Council, T-412/16;

And, giving judgment itself,

| — | Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and its subsequent implementing acts, in so far as they concern the appellant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in that the General Court disregarded the applicant’s right, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to be heard prior to the adoption of new restrictive measures.

The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law and distortion of the facts in that the General Court disregarded the items submitted by the applicant in support of its action for annulment to demonstrate that it did not support the Syrian regime.

The third ground of appeal alleges an error of law in so far as the General Court did not hold that Articles 27 and 28 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP, according to which membership of the Al-Assad or Makhlouf families constitutes an autonomous criterion justifying the imposition of sanctions, were illegal and in so far as it, on the same occasion, reversed the burden of proof.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 22, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 22, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A0509. DANA SAXTON et al. v. THE COASTAL BANK.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
# C_2019288EN.01001102.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/11

---

Appeal brought on 31 January 2019 by WL against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 29 November 2018 in Case T-493/17, WL v ERCEA

(Case C-78/19 P)

(2019/C 288/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

By order of 11 July 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered WL to bear its own costs.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Nos.333-118922 and 333-127245) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-90950, 333-109058, 333-116589and 333-125305) of Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. of our report dated March 13,2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/  PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS LLP |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP      |
| Orange  County, California       |
| March  13, 2006                  |

 

----
[No. 35534-1-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Leroy Holmes, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-03438-0, William L. Downing, J., entered November 4, 1994. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
II 

Calendar No. 32 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 783 

To provide an extension of time for filing individual income tax returns 

in the case of a Federal Government shutdown. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2011 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide an extension of time for filing individual income 

tax returns in the case of a Federal Government shutdown. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING INDIVIDUAL 

4 INCOME TAX RETURNS IN THE CASE OF A 

5 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a Federal Govern7 ment shutdown which begins after April 8, 2011 and be8 fore April 19, 2011, the filing deadline specified in section 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 783 PCS

1 6072(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with re2 spect to returns made on the basis of calendar year 2010 

3 shall be treated as being not earlier than the date which 

4 is 10 calendar days after the end of such Federal Govern5 ment shutdown. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 

6 the rules of section 7503 of such Code shall apply. 

7 (b) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.—The term 

8 ‘‘Federal Government shutdown’’ means any period dur9 ing which funds are not appropriated for the non-defense 

10 discretionary operations of the Federal Government by 

11 reason of the absence of an enacted Appropriations bill 

12 providing such funds. 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 32 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 783 

A BILL 

To provide an extension of time for filing individual 

ernment shutdown. income tax returns in the case of a Federal GovAPRIL 12, 2011 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
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 NEA Outreach Pages







NEA Outreachheadline bar NEA Outreach  Bladensburg, MD - MLK Service 2023  Geneva, NY - Day of Service MLK 2023  Warren Country, TN - MLK Service 2023


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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Vidmantas TCHIAPCHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-5161-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 9, 2009.

Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney, Susan Corkery, Lara Treinis Gatz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.

Brendan White, White & White, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Defendant-appellant Vidmantas Tehiapchis appeals from a judgment entered in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Platt, J.) on November 19, 2007, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of one count of conspiracy to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), and one count of receipt and sale of a stolen motor vehicle, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2313. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the case’s procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Verkhoglyad,*516 F.3d 122, *628127 (2d Cir.2008), we do not find the district court’s sentence to be procedurally unreasonable. A sentencing judge is not required to make any “specific verbal formulation[ ] ... to demonstrate the adequate discharge of the duty to ‘consider’ ” the factors of § 3553(a). *United States v. Fernandez,*443 F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir.2006); *see Verkhoglyad,*516 F.3d at 129 (“[T]he law does not impose ‘any rigorous requirement of specific articulation’ on sentencing judges with respect to their consideration of § 3553(a) factors.” *(quoting United States v. Crosby,*397 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir.2005))). In this case, the sentencing transcript shows that the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors, and did provide an adequate explanation of the basis for its sentence. The court acknowledged that Tchiapchis was entitled to a downward departure — because of the cooperation agreement — but concluded upon consideration of Tchiapchis’s criminal history that a smaller departure than requested was warranted.

Nor was the sentence substantively unreasonable. The final sentence was below the advisory guideline imprisonment range of 121 to 151 months, and Tchiapchis advances no argument explaining why that range, or his specific sentence below it, was substantively unreasonable. *Cf. United States v. Eberhard,*525 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir.2008) (“Although we do not presume that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable, we have recognized that ‘in the overwhelming majority of cases, a Guidelines sentence will fall comfortably within the broad range of sentences that would be reasonable in the particular circumstances.’ ”).

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                44,951
<SECURITIES>                           6,178
<RECEIVABLES>                         12,799
<ALLOWANCES>                           1,003
<INVENTORY>                            7,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      78,095
<PP&E>                                14,844
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       101,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 25,868
<BONDS>                                3,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  83
<OTHER-SE>                            67,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         101,499
<SALES>                               29,096
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      29,096
<CGS>                                 15,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         15,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       1,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         332
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        5,668
<INCOME-TAX>                           2,219
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    3,449
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           3,449
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.42
        

</TABLE>