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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM INC.**(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Michael Kabin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated this 16th day of May, 2006.

 
MICHAEL KABIN 
Michael Kabin 
Chief Executive Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 30, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00798-CV
VOICECOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AMVENSYS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC N/K/A LIMELIGHT CAPITAL, LLC AND INTELLIVERSE TELECOM (PVT) LIMITED D/B/A INTELLIVERS E - INDIA, Appellants V. BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14771



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness Opinion by Justice Bridges Appellants’ brief is overdue. On September 18, 2019, we directed appellants to file their
brief by September 30, 2019. We cautioned appellants that the failure to file a brief by that date
would result in the dismissal of this appeal with out further notice. To date, appellants have not

filed their brief.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

190798F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

VOICECOM TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, AMVENSYS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC N/K/A LIMELIGHT CAPITAL, LLC AND INTELLIVERSE TELECOM (PVT) LIMITED D/B/A INTELLIVERSE - INDIA, Appellants

No. 05-19-00798-CV V.

BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-14771. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellants Voi cecom Telecommunications, LLC, Amvensys Capital Group, LLC N/K/A Limelight Capital, LLC and Intelliverse Telecom (Pvt) Limited D/B/A Intelliverse - India.

Judgment entered October 30, 2019
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

        I, Mark A. Payne, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Financial
Officer of Redline Performance Products, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify
that:

                (1) the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
                    period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
                    and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies with
                    the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                    Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:  June 29, 2004                               /s/ Mark A. Payne
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                   Mark A. Payne
                                                   Chief Executive Officer,
                                                   President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as separate disclosure documents. A signed original of this
written statement has been provided to Redline Performance Products, Inc. and
will be retained by Redline Performance Products, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Argued and submitted November 25, 1998,

reversed and remanded for further proceedings January 6, 1999

#### James RICHARDS and Justine Richards, *Appellants, v.*Carol NOEL and Floyd Noel, *Respondents.*

(16-97-06078; CA A99768)

972 P2d 371

Jan Perkins argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

No appearance by respondents.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*39PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment, assigning error to the trial court’s entry of judgment for defendants and granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse.

This is an action for damages. Defendants’ answer included affirmative defenses and Rule 21 motions. Plaintiffs did not file a reply to defendants’ answer. Because plaintiffs did not file a timely reply, the trial court dismissed the matter.

 The issue here is comparable to that in *Soldo v. Follis,*83 Or App 470, 732 P2d 72 (1987), where we reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. In *Soldo,*the plaintiff failed to file a reply to the affirmative defense of contributory negligence. ORCP 13 B provides that, “[t]here shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such and a reply to assert any affirmative allegations in avoidance of any defenses asserted in an answer.” ORCP 19 C provides that, “[a]llegations in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.” A reply to an affirmative defense is required only when the plaintiff wishes to assert any affirmative matter to avoid the affirmative defenses. The Council on Court Procedures, Staff Comment to ORCP 13, explains:

> “The description of pleadings in section 13B. changes the existing Oregon practice by eliminating the routine reply containing only denials of affirmative matter in the answer. No reply is required to deny affirmative matter in the answer.”

We have reviewed the affirmative defenses and hold that they required no replies. Thus, when plaintiffs failed to file a response to defendants’ answer, the affirmative allegations were deemed denied.

Reversed and remanded for farther proceedings.
* Witnesses listed alphabetically. Actual order of witnesses to be determined based on topics of 

planned testimony. 

Confirmed Witnesses for the 

Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 

Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702 

Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules * 

Via Videoconference 

January 21, 2022 – 9:30 A.M.(ET) 

1. Rebecca E. Bazan, Duane Morris LLP 

2. Douglas K. Burrell, DRI Center for Law & Public Policy 

3. Larry E. Coben, Anapol Weiss 

4. Alex R. Dahl, Lawyers for Civil Justice 

5. Gardner M. Duvall, Whiteford Taylor Preston LLP 

6. Ronni E. Fuchs, Troutman Pepper 

7. James Gotz, Hausfeld LLP 

8. Wayne Hogan, Terrell Hogan Yegelwel P.A. 

9. Katie R. Jackson, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 

10. Andrew E. Kantra, Troutman Pepper 

11. Toyja E. Kelley, DRI Center for Law & Public Policy 

12. Eric G. Lasker, Hollingsworth LLP 

13. Mary Massaron, Plunkett Clooney Attorneys & Counselors at Law 

14. John M. Masslon II, Washington Legal Foundation 

15. Lee Mickus, Evans Fears & Schuttert LLP 

16. Amir Nassihi, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 

17. Leslie W. O’Leary, Ciresi Conlin LLP 

18. Jared M. Placitella, Cohen Placitella & Roth P.C. 

19. Bill Rossbach, Rossbach Law P.C. 

20. Thomas J. Sheehan, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. 

21. Gerson Smoger, Smoger & Associates P.C. 

22. Navan Ward, American Association for Justice 

23. Michael J. Warshauer, Warshauer Law Group
#### Memphis City Bank *v.*Tennesse and Shelby County,

No. 675,

by stipulation, is to abide the event of foregoing ease.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Funchus, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), rendered May 10, 1984, convicting him of official misconduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The fact that the jury acquitted the defendant of bribe receiving in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 200.10), and of receiving unlawful gratuities *(see,*Penal Law § 200.35), did not preclude it from convicting him of official misconduct *(see,*
      *844Penal Law § 195.00 [1]). The court’s role in determining whether a verdict is repugnant is limited to a review of the jury charge "to ascertain what essential elements were described” to the jury, and thereupon to "determine whether the jury, *as instructed,*must have reached an inherently self-contradictory verdict”, even if the . charge is not accurate *(People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1, 7, 8 [emphasis supplied], *rearg denied*55 NY2d 1039). In this case, the court instructed the jury that one of the elements of the crime of bribe receiving and of the crime of receiving unlawful gratuities was that the defendant "solicited, accepted *and*agreed to accept a benefit” (emphasis supplied), rather than solicited *or*agreed. The jury could have concluded that the defendant did not actually accept the money, but that he still committed an unauthorized act constituting official misconduct, for which he was convicted. Hence the verdict is not repugnant.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10041]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-62-001]


Sierra Southwest Electric Power Cooperative Services, Inc.; 
Notice of Filing

April 18, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2001, Sierra Southwest Cooperative 
Services, Inc., submitted an errata to its above-captioned request for 
determination as to the non-jurisdictional status of certain 
activities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 2, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10041 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-30121

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MARIAH OFFER; DEAN RAYMOND;

PATRICK KERNS; JOHN JACOBS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

BASIC TOWING, INC.; DAN KOBASIC,

Individually and as Master of the

TUG KRYSTAL K; UNIDENTIFIED PARTY,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-210-T

_________________________________________________________________ January 16, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Maria h Offer, Dean Raymond, Patrick Kerns, and John Jacobs

sued Basic Towing, Inc., owner of the M/V TUG KRYST AL K, and Dan

Kobasic, owner of Basic Towing and master of the vessel, to recover

travel expenses advanced to them but later deducted from their

wages when they refused to sail with the vess el prior to its

departure. The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s holding that-2-

the defen dants were justified in deducting travel expenses from

their wages under 46 U.S.C. § 11501(2) and its holding that Offer,

Jacobs, and Kerns were jointly liable for delay costs and other

expenses incurred by the defendants resulting from Offer, Jacobs,

and Kerns breaching their employment contracts by refusing to sail.

Under 46 U.S.C. § 11501(2), deductions from a seaman’s wages

a re justified for a seaman neglecting or refusing, withou t

reasonable cause, to join the vessel or proceed to sea; the amount

of the deductio n must be either not more than two days’ pay or a

sufficient amount to defray expenses incurred in hiring a

substitute. The district court’s findings that the vessel was

seaworthy, safe, and liveable; that the p laintiffs did not have

reasonable cause to refuse to sail; and that the advanced travel

expenses deducted from their wages covered the expenses of flying

in replacements are factual findings plausible in the light of the

record read as a whole and not clearly erroneous. S ee Dow Chemical

v. M/V Roberta Tabor

, 815 F.2d 1037, 1042 (5th Cir. 1987);

Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Suwannee River Spa L. , 866 F.2d 752,

768 (5th Cir. 1989).

The district court’s findings that Offer, Kerns, and Jacobs

acted together in quitting and that their breaches of their

employment contracts together caused a three-day delay in sailing

and incurred expenses to the defendants in the amount of $1,628 are-3-

also factual findings plausible in the light of the record read as

a whole and not clearly erroneous. Id.

A F F I R M E D.
Exhibit 99.6





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 on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 of Hydrogenics Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Daryl Wilson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:




(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




By:

/s/ Daryl WilsonName: Daryl WilsonTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 4, 2015







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hydrogenics Corporation and will be retained by Hydrogenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



1 Exhibit 1  InfoVista SA




---



##### 



2 Article 1  FORM
 S.A.R.L.
 Société Anonyme Code de commerce
 Article 2  OBJECTS
  
    
    Research operations, analysis, creation, development and editing of programmes,
    
    Training, consultancy, sales, distribution and maintenance concerning all hardware, software and services pertaining to
computing structures, automatic processes or automation, product automation, office automation and telecommunications
for public and private companies or institutions whatsoever their specific field of activity,
    
    And generally, all industrial, commercial, movable, immovable and financial operations related directly or indirectly
to the objects stated above or contributing to their development.
 Article 3  NAME
 InfoVista SA
 Article 4  HEAD OFFICE




---



##### 



3 Article 5  DURATION
  Article 6  AUTHORISED CAPITAL
   Article 7  INCREASE IN CAPITAL
    Code de commerce
  Code de commerce
 Article 8  DECREASE IN CAPITAL




---



##### 



4 Article 9   PAYMENT OF SHARES
  Code de
commerce
 Article 10  TYPE OF SHARES
    Article 11  TRANSFER OF SHARES
  Article 12  RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS ATTACHED TO SHARES




---



##### 



5   Article 13  APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
     ARTICLE 14  MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS




---



##### 



6      Article 15  POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
     Article 16  COMPANY MANAGEMENT
 
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors




---



##### 



7   
    
    Senior Management
      
    
    Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
      
    
    Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Directeur général délégué)




---



##### 



8 
         Article 17  REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS




---



##### 



9 Article 18  RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT
 Sociétés
Anonymes
 Article 19  COMMITTEE OF EXTERNAL ADVISERS
     Article 20  AUDITORS
   Article 21  RULES COMMON TO ALL GENERAL MEETINGS
   Code de
commerce
  
    
    as regards holders of registered shares, the listing of shares in
the shareholders name in the company registers not less than five
days before the date of the general meeting;




---



##### 



10 
    
    as regards holders of bearer shares, the submitting, at the place
specified in the notice of meeting, of a certificate issued by the
intermediary keeping their account, which states the
unavailability of the shares listed in the account until the date
of the general meeting. This formality should be carried out not
less than five days before the date of the general meeting as set
forth in article 136 of the decree of 23 March 1967.




---



##### 



11  Article 22  PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO ORDINARY GENERAL MEETINGS.
       Article 23  PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETINGS




---



##### 



12  Article 24  ACCOUNTING YEAR
  Article 25  ACCOUNTS
    Article 26  ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF EARNINGS
   Article 27  PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS




---



##### 



13 Article 28   SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY LESS THAN HALF THE AUTHORISED CAPITAL
    Article 29  DISSOLUTION  LIQUIDATION




---



##### 



14 Article 30  DISPUTES
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1579 L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, LINK SIMULATION & TRAINING DIVISION, Appellant,

v. Michael B. Donley, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, Appellee. Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in no. 54920,

Administrative Judge Monroe E. Freeman, Jr.

ON MOTION Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER L-3 Communications Corporation, Link Simulation & Training Division moves for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing its appeal as untimely_ Upon consideration thereof IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied. FOR THE COURT 

### MAY -1 2009 Date

cc: Roy A. Klein, Esq. Matthew H. Solomson, Esq. s8 /s/ Jan Horbalv Jan Horbaly Clerk
MAY -1 2009 Jegi CLERK
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20822-20823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Advisory Environmental Health Sciences Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should

[[Page 20823]]

notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Environmental Health 
Sciences Council.
    Date: May 21, 2001.
    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: Discussion of program policies and issues. Agenda: 
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/c-agenda.htm.
    Place: NIEHS, Rodbell Auditorium, Building 101, 111 Alexander 
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    Closed: 2 p.m. to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS, Rodbell Auditorium, Building 101, 111 Alexander 
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    Contact Person: Anne P. Sassaman, Ph.D., Director, Division of 
Extramural Research and Training, National Institute of 
Environmental Health, Sciences, National Institutes of Health, P.O. 
Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541-7723.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.113, 
Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied 
Toxicological Research and Testing; 93.115, Biometry and Risk 
Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 
Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS 
Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic Research and Education; 
93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental 
Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 18, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-10203 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```