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

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Entrust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 6, 2008 |  |        |  | /s/ David J. Wagner    
|                     |  | Name:  |  | David J. Wagner        
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. 75-6916.

#### Chicoine *v.*Village of Mogadore.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021431EN.01002901.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — AH v Eurofound

(Case T-630/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Action for annulment - Lis pendens - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Obligation to state reasons - Lack of competence of the author of an act - Error of assessment - Liability - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 431/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (represented by: F. van Boven and M. Jepsen, acting as Agents, and by C. Callanan, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of Eurofound of 9 November 2018 closing the administrative investigation AI-2018/01 opened following the applicant’s request for assistance in respect of alleged psychological harassment on the part of his superiors, and second, compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AH to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AH to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound).

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
#### Isabel Hernandez, Appellant, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. (And A Third-Party Action.)

[945 NYS2d 292]—

*794Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered on or about January 25, 2011, which, in this personal injury action, denied plaintiff’s motion for an order deeming the facts in her notice to admit as having been admitted by defendant-respondent and to strike the portion of defendant’s answer that denied those facts, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Defendant is deemed to have admitted the facts contained in plaintiff’s notice to admit, as it did not timely respond to the notice *(see*CPLR 3123 [a]; *see also New Image Constr., Inc. v TDR Enters. Inc.,*74 AD3d 680, 681 [2010]). Indeed, defendant did not respond to the notice to admit until 2V2 years later, and then simply objected to the requests as improper and denied the facts “on information and belief.” Contrary to defendant’s contention, the notice to admit, which addressed matters regarding the ownership, control and duty to maintain the metal grating upon which plaintiff allegedly fell, did not demand answers to material issues of fact. Indeed, defendant’s answer did not unequivocally deny the allegation that it “had charge” of the metal grating and a duty to maintain it. Further, the notice to admit properly addressed factual issues likely to be within defendant’s knowledge or which it could ascertain upon reasonable inquiry *(see Villa v New York City Hous. Auth.,*107 AD2d 619, 620 [1985]). Absent any explanation for the belated and patently inadequate response to the notice *(see Rosenfeld v Vorsanger,*5 AD3d 462, 463 [2004]), plaintiffs motion should have been granted.

Plaintiff is especially entitled to the relief she requests, given that defendant failed to proffer any proof on the issue of ownership or control of the grating. Moreover, defendant’s belated response, after the expiration of the statute of limitations on plaintiffs negligence claim, prejudiced plaintiff as she was unable to bring a claim against the purported actual owner of the grating. By contrast, defendant has impleaded the purported actual owner and may be able to prevail on its claim for common-law indemnification. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 13 - 00276 - CR

CHADWICK JERAMINE PA RKS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DENTO N COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Chadwick Jeramine Parks attempts to appeal his conviction for possession of less than two ounce s of marihuana. We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, however, because Mr. Parks has filed no timely written notice of appeal in compliance with the r ules. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b), in pertinent part, provides that, “In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

filing a sufficient notice of appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b). Rule 26.2(a) provides that notice is timely if filed “( 1) within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order; or (2) within 90 days after the day sentenced is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.” Tex. R. App. 26.2(a). The record shows that Mr. Parks did not file a motion for new trial or a written notice of appeal but that he gave a verbal notice of appeal in the trial
court . Unfortunately, however, by doing so, he failed to invoke our jurisdiction to hear his appeal. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State , 918 S.W. 2 d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Where we are without jurisdiction, we are without power to act. See Olivo , 918 S. W.2d at 523; Ex parte Caldwell , 383 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964) (op. on reh’g) (“Jurisdiction of a court must be legally invoked, and when not legally invoked, the power of the court to act is as absent as if it did not exist.”). We sent notice to Mr. Park s expressing our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal and advising him that the appeal would be dismissed unless he or any party timely sent us a reply stating the groun ds for continuing the appeal. Mr. Parks timely responded, but his response d oes not provide any ground s for continuing this appeal. Consequently, w e may take no action other than to dismiss it

. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210 (reasoning that if an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of3

appeals has no jurisdi ction to address the merits and can take no action other than to dismiss it). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. 26.2(a); 43.2(f); Olivo , 918 S.W.3d at 522

– 23; Martinez v. State , No. 02

– 13

– 00045

– CR, 2013 WL 978 808, at *1 (Tex. App

–– Fort Worth Mar. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 24, 2013
#### Arpindo Corporation, Respondent, v Insurance Company of North America, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Freedman, J.), entered December 12, 1984, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action in the complaint which sought punitive damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion to dismiss the second cause of action is granted.

In an action to recover under a fire insurance policy for damages allegedly sustained as a result of a fire, and further seeking punitive damages, defendant appeals from Special Term’s order denying its motion to dismiss the second cause of action seeking punitive damages.

It is alleged in the second cause of action that the defendant insurance company falsely represented at the time plaintiff secured the policy of insurance sued upon that it would honor claims for loss or damages within the coverage of the policy. The complaint alleges that the defendant never intended to pay such claims but instead meant to use its bargaining power to force the plaintiff and others similarly situated to accept lesser amounts in settlement of their claims.

The issue presented is essentially the same as that addressed by this court in *Samovar of Russia Jewelry Antique Corp. v Generali, Gen. Ins. Co.*(102 AD2d 279). For the reasons set forth at length in that opinion (at pp 281-282), the allegations in the second cause of action are legally insufficient to establish a claim for punitive damages. *(See also, Halpin v Prudential Ins. Co.,*48 NY2d 906; *Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’ Nuts Corp.,*86 AD2d 315.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Asch, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
Exhibit 31.4

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATE

I, Kathy Y. Yi, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. (the registrant); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 24, 2018                                
|                                                    
|/s/ Kathy Y. Yi                                     
|Kathy Y. Yi                                         
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’sdisclosure 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 small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter 

(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2005 

 

/s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.

Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President

and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.6

         On September 12, 2003, the Board of Directors of Radiologix, Inc.
adopted the following resolution to amend the Amended and Restated Bylaws:

         RESOLVED, that the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of
Article III, Section 2 of the Corporation's Bylaws regarding the composition of
the Board be, and they hereby are, deleted, so that, as amended, Article III,
Section 2, reads in its entirety as follows:

                  Section 2. Number; Election; Tenure and Qualification. The
         number of directors which shall constitute the whole Board of Directors
         shall be fixed from time to time by resolution of the Board of
         Directors or by the stockholders at an annual meeting of the
         stockholders provided that the number of directors shall be not less
         than four (4) nor more than nine (9). Except as provided in Section 3
         of this Article III, the directors shall be elected at the annual
         meeting of the stockholders by a plurality vote of the shares
         represented in person or by proxy and each director elected shall hold
         office for a one year term or until his successor is elected and
         qualified unless he shall resign, become disqualified, disabled or
         otherwise removed. Directors need not be stockholders.
# Official Journal C 126A/7 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 126A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 507 June 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 126A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 507 June 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 126A/01 | DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) — Publication of a vacancy notice for the post of Director — ‘Institute for Environment and Sustainability’ in Ispra (JRC.H) (Grade AD 14) — COM/2007/10050 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Commission

2007/C 126A/01

DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) — Publication of a vacancy notice for the post of Director — ‘Institute for Environment and Sustainability’ in Ispra (JRC.H) (Grade AD 14) — COM/2007/10050

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John Gunn, certify that: 1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of DataWave Systems, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.  The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting; and 5.  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business
issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
    June 29th, 2005By:
    /s/ John GunnJohn GunnGeneral Manager and Chief Financial Officer
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 359 

Commending Alan S. Frumin on his service to the United States Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2012 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commending Alan S. Frumin on his service to the United 

States Senate. 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin, a native of New Rochelle, New 

York and graduate of Colgate University and Georgetown 

University Law Center, began his long career with the 

Congress in the House of Representatives precedents 

writing office in April of 1974; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin began work with the Secretary of 

the Senate’s Office of the Senate Parliamentarian on 

January 1, 1977, serving under eight Majority Leaders; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin served the Senate as its Parliamentarian from 1987 to 1995 and from 2001 to 2012 and 

has been Parliamentarian Emeritus since 1997; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin revised the Senate’s book on procedure, ‘‘Riddick’s Senate Procedure’’ and is the only sitVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:11 Feb 01, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR359.ATS SR359

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 359 ATS 

ting Parliamentarian to have published a compilation of 

the body’s work; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin has shown tremendous dedication 

to the Senate during his 35 years of service; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin has earned the respect and affection of the Senators, their staffs and all of his colleagues 

for his extensive knowledge of all matters relating to the 

Senate, his fairness and thoughtfulness; 

Whereas Alan S. Frumin now retires from the Senate after 

35 years to spend more time with his wife, Jill, and his 

daughter, Allie; Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate expresses its appreciation 

2 to Alan S. Frumin and commends him for his lengthy, 

3 faithful and outstanding service to the Senate. 

4 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate shall 

5 transmit a copy of this resolution to Alan S. Frumin. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Floyd A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alvin KELLER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6367.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.

Floyd A. Williams, Appellant pro se.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Floyd A. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 4, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on March 7, 2011.* Thus, the notice of appeal was filed outside the thirty-day appeal period. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Because Williams is incarcerated, he is deemed to have filed the notice of appeal the date he deposited it in the prison mail system. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1). According to the certificate of service, Williams mailed his notice of appeal on March 7, 2011.