alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of SourcingLink.net, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary J. Davidson, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: June 25, 2003



/s/    Gary J. DavidsonGary J. Davidson Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**MICHAEL JAMES,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY; AND COURT** 

**OF COMMON PLEAS PRESIDENT JUDGE OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY;** 

**AND COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF**

**COMMON PLEAS COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 29 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 12th day of May, 2015, the Application Leave t o File Leave** 

**Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are**  GRANTED

**.**

**The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County has failed to comply with the** 

**remand order of the Superior Court.** See Commonwealth v. James **, 116 EDA 2009**

**(December 14, 2009). The common pleas court is** DIRECTED **to adjudicate the**

**remanded Post Conviction Relief Act matter within 60 days.** 

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to serve the Commonwealth with a copy of this**

**order.**
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TAGENTERTAINMENT CORP. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form10-QSB for the period ending March  31,  2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Steve Austin, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                                     |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

|                                                                            |  |  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|
| /s/ Steve Austin                                                           |
| SteveAustin,Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficerMay  22,2006 |
|                                                                            |

----
#### UNITED STATES v. Specialist Five Otis HUFF, Jr., [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], U. S. Army, U. S. Army Personnel Control Facility, U. S. Army Garrison, Fort Carson, Colorado.

CM 432668.

U. S. Army Court of Military Review.

29 Aug. 1975.

Appellate counsel for the Accused: CPT David A. Shaw, JAGC; CPT Albert T. Berry, JAGC; LTC James Kucera, JAGC; COL Victor A. De Fiori, JAGC.

*615Appellate counsel for the United States: CPT Robert L. Powell, JAGC; CPT Gary F. Thorne, JAGC; LTC Donald W. Hansen, JAGC.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Before CARNE, Senior Judge, and MITCHELL and MOUNTS, Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted upon his plea of guilty before a general court-martial of absence without leave. The approved sentence appears above.

A verbatim record of trial which has been properly authenticated is required in a general court-martial case or a special court-martial which can adjudge a bad-conduct discharge when the sentence adjudged exceeds that which can be adjudged by a regular special court-martial. (Paras. *82b,*82f, and 83a, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition)). As the sentence adjudged in this case exceeded the jurisdictional limitations of a regular special court-martial, it was error not to prepare a properly authenticated verbatim record.

This Court does not decide at this time whether a video tape can be construed to be a verbatim record. We do hold the record before us is inadequate for appellate review due to the lack of implementing regulations which include a method to confirm the validity of the video tapes to the authentication process. In addition, a procedure is required to authorize a person (reporter as defined in para. 49, MCM, 1969, (Rev.)) to be sworn and to have performed the preparation and control of the tapes during and after trial. Furthermore, adequate procedures for compliance with the provision of Article 54(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 54(e) must be developed.

A viewing of these tapes which showed the presence of a sworn court reporter indicates to this Court the possibility that a properly authenticated verbatim record can still be made available in this case.

Accordingly, the action of the convening authority, dated 26 November 1974, is hereby set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for a new review and action by the same staff judge advocate and convening authority.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. David Garcia, Appellant, v Mark Bradt, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 919]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *{see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Mark H. Dadd, A.J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,4260.64844
#### In the Matter of Tanya B., Also Known as Tanya C.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision, respondent appeals from an order of adjournment, for a period of six months, in contemplation of dismissal. Because the matter was not restored to the calendar within the six-month period, the petition is deemed dismissed in the furtherance of justice *(see,*Family Ct Act § 749). The order resulting in dismissal is manifestly in respondent’s favor. Not being aggrieved by the order, she has no right to appeal therefrom *(see, People v Marinoff,*98 Mise 2d 367; CPLR 5511; Family Ct Act § 1118). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Honan, J. — PINS.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
**Exhibit 10.7**

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 4**

**TO**

**OYO GEOSPACE CORPORATION**

**1997 KEY EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN**

 

This Amendment No. 4 to OYO Geospace Corporation 1997 Key Employee Stock Option Plan (the “Key Employee Plan”) amends the Key Employee Plan as follows: 

 

Section 4.2 of the Key Employee Plan is amended to read in its entirety asfollows: 

 

“4.2 DEDICATED SHARES. The total number ofshares of Stock with respect to which awards may be granted under the Plan shall be 1,125,000. The shares may be treasury shares or authorized but unissued shares. The total number of shares of Stock with respect to which Incentive Options may begranted under the Plan shall not exceed 1,125,000. The total number of shares of Stock with respect to which Nonqualified Options may be granted under the Plan shall not exceed 1,125,000. The total number of shares of Stock with respect to whichStock Awards may be granted under the Plan shall not exceed 1,125,000. The maximum number of shares of Stock with respect to which Incentive Options may be granted to any Employee under the Plan during any calendar year is 400,000. The maximumnumber of shares of Stock with respect to which Nonqualified Options may be granted to any Employee under the Plan during a calendar year is 400,000. Notwithstanding anything in the preceding two sentences of this Section 4.2 to the contrary, thenumber of shares of Stock granted to an Employee under the Plan during a calendar year with respect to Incentive Options and Nonqualified Options may not exceed 400,000 shares in the aggregate. The number of shares stated in this Section 4.2 shallbe subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.5. 

 

In the event that any outstanding Option or Stock Award shall expire or terminate for any reason or any Option or Stock Award is surrendered, the shares of Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of that Option orStock Award may again be subject to an Option or Stock Award under the Plan.” 

 

- 1 -
EXHIBIT 3 

Case 3:15-cv-00907-AC    Document 122-3    Filed 11/14/17    Page 1 of 1
#### Chicago *&*Alton Railroad Co. *vs.*St. Paul German Fire Ins. Co.

Argued Dec. 13, 1893.

Reversed Jan. 15, 1894.

No. 8423.

Appeal by plaintiff, the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, from a judgment of the District Court of Ramsey County, *Eascal R.*Brill, J., entered June 9, 1893, that it take nothing by this action.

The plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois and owns and operates a railway. The defendant, the St. Paul German Insurance Company, is a corporation created under the laws of this State. On October 1, 1890, it insured the plaintiff for one year against loss by fire, upon its station houses, freight depots, cars and other property. During the year several losses occurred amounting to S?6,94G.G8. The Insurance Company became insolvent and on April 14, 1S92, made a general assignment of all its property under Daws 1881, ch. 148, to Jacob F. Franzén, in trust for those of its creditors who should prove their claims and release the part not paid from the assigned estate. The plaintiff proved and filed its claim with the assignee. He disallowed the claim and the Railroad Company appealed to the District Court. While that appeal was pending and on August 30, 1892, the plaintiff commenced this action against the Insurance Company to recover judgment against it for the ?G,94G.6S. The defendant answered that the insolvency proceedings still pending constituted another and former action between the parties for the same cause and were a bar to this a'ction. (1S78 G. S- ch. GO, §§ 94, 92, subd. 3.) The issues came on for trial May 2, 1893, when defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and the Court granted the motion. Judgment was entered for defendant for costs and the plaintiff appeals.

*Wm. Ely Bramhall,*for appellant.

The corporation is not bound by the allowance of a claim by its assignee, except so far as the distribution of its assets is concerned. Nor is it bound *210by the judgment rendered on an appeal from a disallowance of the claim. The filing of the claim or the appeal from the order allowing or disallowing it, cannot be considered a suit pending between the same parties, so as to bar a subsequent suit by the creditor against the corporation. This Court has recognized the right of the creditor to maintain this suit after the debtor’s assignment. *Willis*v. *Mahon,*48 Minn. 140; *Allen*v. *Walsh,*25 Minn. 543; *Mohr*v. *Minnesota Elevator Co.,*40 Minn. 343.

*G. D. á Thos. D. O’Brien,*for respondent,

referred to their brief in *Smith*v. *St. Paul German Ins. Co., ante,*p. 202

Buck, J.

The same question considered in this case as in *Smith*v. *Same Defendant, ante,*p. 202, (57 N. *W.*475,) and the opinion in that case followed.

Judgment reversed.

(Opinion published 57 N. W. Rep. 477.)
# L_2010252EN.01018601.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/186

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 5 May 2010

on the closure of the accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2008

(2010/537/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2008,

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2008, together with the Foundation’s replies (1),

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),

having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1339/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a European Training Foundation (3), and in particular Article 17 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0083/2010),

| 1. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Training Foundation, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The President

Jerzy BUZEK

The Secretary-General

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  
  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 136.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 82.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

4

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the best of my knowledge; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by
the Report and results of operations for the Company for the period covered by the
Report.
  /s/ Robin L. WashingtonRobin L. WashingtonChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DIANA MARIE ROBBINS aka 

DIANA MARIE AUSTIN, 

v. 

Plaintiff, 

COLUMBIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants. 

JUDGMENT 

Civil No.6:15-cv-00821-AA 

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff against CCS in the amount of Fifteen Thousand 

and 00/100ths Dollars ($15,000.00), plus costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney's fees. 

Plaintiff's claims against Providence are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or fees. 

Dated this ~of September 2015. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

JUDGMENT 

Case 6:15-cv-00821-AA Document 23 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME TAXES AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS COPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999         JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1999         SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                   1
<CASH>                             29,064              18,531
<SECURITIES>                       44,832             109,954
<RECEIVABLES>                     114,574              86,434
<ALLOWANCES>                       (3,200)             (1,978)
<INVENTORY>                             0                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  201,354             225,696
<PP&E>                            101,713              72,298
<DEPRECIATION>                     47,168              37,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    275,614             274,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              62,123              60,590
<BONDS>                                 0                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0                   0
<COMMON>                              358                 265
<OTHER-SE>                        204,033             213,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      275,614             274,777
<SALES>                           253,123             255,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  253,123             255,908
<CGS>                             161,540             142,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     106,781              86,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,642                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    1,256                 432
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    862                 822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (15,044)             29,553
<INCOME-TAX>                       (5,394)             15,990
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (9,650)             13,563
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                   0
<CHANGES>                               0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (9,650)             13,563
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.35)               0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.35)               0.48



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JASON MICHAEL ELLIS, No. 2:16-cv-00449-TC

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

MARK NOOTH, ORDER

 Respondent.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation (#12) on November 3,

2016, in which he recommends that this Court deny Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus and

decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 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,

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

1 - ORDER

Case 2:16-cv-00449-TC Document 14 Filed 01/04/17 Page 1 of 2
novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings & Recommendation [12].

Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [2] is denied. The Court declines

to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2016.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

17 December

Case 2:16-cv-00449-TC Document 14 Filed 01/04/17 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 22, 2021

No. 04-21-00488-CR

IN RE Joshua PACHECANO, Relator

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On November 5, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relator’s petition and has determined that it is now moot. Accordingly, the petition for 

writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on December 22, 2021.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of December, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CR11362, styled State of Texas v. Joshua Charles Pachecano, pending 

in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell presiding.