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

 

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to**

 

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

 

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Kevin F. McLaughlin, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|     /s/  Kevin F. McLaughlin |                     |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Name:                                            | Kevin F.  McLaughlin     |
| Title:                                           | Chief  Financial Officer |
| Date:                                            | November 14,  2003  |
|                                                  |                          |  |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATEDand will be retained by PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange  Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME, WHICH ARE
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FILED HEREWITH, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              89
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      443
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (38)
<INVENTORY>                                        422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   982
<PP&E>                                           2,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,318
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,465
<BONDS>                                            336
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           873
<OTHER-SE>                                       (356)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,318
<SALES>                                          2,793
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,793
<CGS>                                            1,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  67
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (66)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (265)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered June 8, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00354-CR

PRAKASH POORNAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 7

Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 512034

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due May 3, 2018. When it was not filed, we notified appellant by 

postcard dated May 7, 2018, and instructed him to file his brief and a motion to extend time to 

file the brief by May 17, 2018. To date, no brief or motion has been filed, and we have had no 

communication from appellant.

Therefore, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal or whether 

appellant has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain 

appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s 

absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per 
curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be 

necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order to Judge Genie Wright, Presiding 

Judge, County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County; to retained counsel Paul Saputo; and to Jay 

Brandon, Assistant District Attorney, Bexar County.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### 225 5th, LLC, Respondent, v Jhanna Volynets, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 881]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered August 9, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action, alleging breach of contract, and for a declaration, upon its second cause of action, that the purchase agreement was validly canceled, and so declared, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s failure to appear at the scheduled closing, at which plaintiff appeared, ready, willing and able to close, constitutes a default under the purchase agreement *(see El-Ad, 250 W. LLC v 30 Hubert St. LLC,*67 AD3d 520 [2009]). Defendant’s failure to cure her default or to provide a lawful excuse for it entitles plaintiff to retain the 10% down payment as liquidated damages, pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 16 of the purchase agreement *(see Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo,*68 NY2d 373, 378 [1986]; *Rivera v Konkol,*48 AD3d 347 [2008]).

The issue of which party should bear liability for the carrying costs is rendered moot by defendant’s unexcused default, which entitles plaintiff to the down payment as liquidated damages without reference to its actual damages (see *Uzan v 845 UN Ltd. Partnership,*10 AD3d 230, 237 [2004]).

Defendant failed to raise an issue of fact whether the conditions existing in the unit on the day before closing were other than “minor details” and therefore gave her the right, under paragraph 18 (i) of the purchase agreement, to decline to accept title. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.47

                [JOHN ALDEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION LETTERHEAD]


February 28, 1997 


Glendon E. Johnson
John Alden Financial Corporation
7300 Corporate Center Drive
Miami, Florida 33126


RE:     AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

Dear Mr. Johnson:

        The undersigned hereby agree that the term of the Employment Agreement
dated as of October 2, 1992 between John Alden Financial Corporation and you,
is hereby extended until December 31, 1997, by amending, effective as of
December 30, 1996, the reference in such paragraph 4 to "December 31, 1996" to
read "December 31, 1997".

        If you are in agreement with this amendment, please execute and return
a copy of this letter agreement, whereupon the Employment Agreement will be
amended, effective as of December 30, 1996.




                                             EMPLOYER:
                                             ---------
                                             JOHN ALDEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                               /s/  SCOTT L. STANTON
                                             ---------------------------------


EXECUTIVE:
----------
GLENDON E. JOHNSON


/s/ GLENDON E. JOHNSON
-----------------------
#### CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. ROBERTSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

December 28, 1895.)

Action by Mary Jane Campbell against Joseph B. Robertson, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ZARING
NATIONAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    113,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          21,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,847)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         45,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,131
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,662
<SALES>                                        123,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,447
<CGS>                                          103,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,041)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (888)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Stewart, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 750] —

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about June 16, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Counsel for appellant is referred to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 606.5,. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Degrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statements (Nos.
33-35941,  33-43868,  33-43866, 33-45994, 33-45142, 33-54382, 33-69946, 33-75088
and 333-28593) of Bentley Pharamceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company")
on Form S-3 and the  Registration  Statement No. 33-85154 of the Company on Form
S-8 of our reports dated March 27, 1998,  appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1997.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Tampa, Florida
March 27, 1998
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

________________ _____________
No. 1D18-3950

________________ _____________
M ICHAEL J OHN B ISKIE , Appellant,

v.

S ANDRA L EE A BBOTT , f/k/a Sandra Lee Biskie,

Appellee.

________________ _____________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Levy County. David P. Kreider, Judge.

July 9, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur.

________________ _____________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________ _____________2 Beth M. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm, Williston, for Appellant.

Thomas H. Yardley, Cocoa, for Appellee.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Sam
Kraynek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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 period 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;

5. The small business issuers other certifying officers 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;

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: |  | May 14, 2010                        
|By:   |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek                     
|      |  | Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
Order entered November 21, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01195
- CV
IN RE: STEWART PHILL IP MCCRAY, Relator On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 09
- 02559



### O RDER The Court has before it relator’s motion to release bond. On November 7, 2013, this Court issued a memorandum opinion and a writ of habeas corpus in the above case releas ing relator from t he bond posted to this Court by our order of August 28, 201 3, and ordering relator unconditionally released and discharged from the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County. The writ, however, did not specifically direct that the bond amount be returned to relator. Accordingly, pursuant to this Court’s November 7 , 2013 opinion and writ of habeas corpus, relator’s motion is G RANTED . The Dallas County Sheriff is ORDERED to release the $10,500 cash bond posted by relator in the case styled In the M atter of the M

arriage of Stewart Phillip McCray and Nikki Slaughter M cCray

.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to

counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT*

Catalina Industries, Inc. (formerly Dana Lighting, Inc.), a Florida corporation
             Catalina Real Estate Trust, Inc., a Florida corporation
               Catalina Merchandising, Inc., a Florida corporation
                    Catalina Realty Trust, a Hong Kong Trust
             Catalina Realty Hong Kong Limited, a Hong Kong company
                 Catalina Industrial, Ltd., a Hong Kong company
           Catalina Lighting Canada (1992), Inc., a Quebec corporation
                Trade World Industrial, Ltd., a Hong Kong company
                   Angel Station, Inc., a Florida corporation
                 Go-Gro Industries Limited, a Hong Kong company
                     Lamp Depot Limited, a Hong Kong company
                   Meridian Lamps, Inc., a Florida corporation
             Meridian Lamps Development, Inc., a Florida corporation
                     Catalina Asia, a Hong Kong partnership
                       Audiopro Ltd., a Hong Kong company
          Catalina Lighting Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation
               Golda Metal Industries Limited, a Hong Kong company
Shenzhen Jiadianbao Electrical Products Company, Limited ("SJE"), a cooperative
    joint venture organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China

* All subsidiaries, except for Golda Metal Industries which is 50% owned and the
SJE joint venture which is 100% owned as to production and 70% owned as to real
estate, are wholly-owned by the registrant.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-80,940-01

EX P ARTE ERNEST O TIRADO F LORES JR., AK A ERNESTO F LORES TIRADO, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-3072- 04-C(1) IN THE 139T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HIDALG O COUNTY

Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code o f C ri m i n al Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted o f b u rgl ar y of a habitation and sente nced to two year s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive as s i s t an ce. The trial court deter mined that co un s el ’s conduct in the prese nt case was defic ient and that but for her defic ient conduct, Applicant would have pleade d not guilty and insisted on a trial. See Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). We agree . The trial court also conclude d that counsel was ineffe ctive in cause2

number CR 0603-00-C. We decline to adopt t his conclusion. The lega lity of that convict i o n an d sentenc e is not befor e this Court. Relief is grante d. The judgme nt in cause number C R -3 0 7 2 -0 4-C(1) in the 139th District Court of Hidalg o County is set aside, and if appropr iate, Applicant shall be rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Hidalg o County to answe r the charg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any

nece ssary

bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Te xa s D epar tment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Dec ember

17, 2014 Do not publish
THE PRUDENTIAL HOME MORTGAGE 
COMPANY, INC. OFFICER'S ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE


The undersigned Vice Presidents of The Prudential Home Mortgage
Company, Inc., servicer (the "Servicer") under servicing 
agreements related to the Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates of the Series listed on Attachment A hereto 
(the "Agreements"), hereby certify that:


		(i) a review of the activities of the
		Servicer for calendar year 1996 and of 
		its performance under the Agreements for
		such period has been made under the
		undersigned's supervision, and

		(ii) to the best of the undersigned's
		knowledge, based on such review, the
		Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
		under the Agreements throughout such period.


Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given
to them in the Agreement.


Date:  March 31,1997


By:     /s/CAROLYN PUMPHREY
Name:   Carolyn Pumphrey
Title:  Vice President


By:     /s/DANIEL ROSEN
Name:   Daniel Rosen
Title:  Vice President
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TORI RENAE MARTIN, 

No. 3:14-CV-01603-SB

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation [23] on February 9, 

2016, in which she recommends that this Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration and dismiss this case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were 

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 

Case 3:14-cv-01603-SB Document 25 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2 - ORDER

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate 

Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de 

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman’s Findings & Recommendation [23], 

and therefore, the Commissioner’s final decision is affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2016.

 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01603-SB Document 25 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2