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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Clifford K. Bown, certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security
International, Inc. for the quarter ended on September 30, 2010, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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 Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown                                
|Clifford K. Bown                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|November 5, 2010
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(a)

                           METATEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                       FOR
                           ANNUAL REPORTS ON FORM 10-K


         The undersigned, a director of Metatec International, Inc., an Ohio
corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitutes and appoints Christopher A.
Munro and Gary W. Qualmann, and each of them, my true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power to act without the other, with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for me and in my name, place, and
stead, in my capacity as director of the Company, to execute the Company's Form
10-K Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 for the Company's fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, and for each
fiscal year thereafter, and any amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done, as fully to all intents
and purposes as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them or their or his
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ Joseph F. Keeler, Jr.
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Joseph F. Keeler, Jr.

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ Peter J. Kight
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Peter J. Kight

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ David P. Lauer
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    David P. Lauer

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ Jerry D. Miller
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Jerry D. Miller

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ James V. Pickett
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    James V. Pickett

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ Daniel D. Viren
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Daniel D. Viren

Dated:  March 18, 2002                          /s/ Jeffrey M. Wilkins
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Jeffrey M. Wilkins



                                       53
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

SHERYL TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2013-3037 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. AT1221120255-W-1. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

The Department of the Treasury moves to recaption to 

name the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent, 

and for a 21-day extension of time for the MSPB to file its 

response brief. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns 

the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing 

agency is designated as the respondent when the Board 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 01/29/2013
SHERYL TAYLOR V. MSPB 2

reaches the merits of the underlying case. Here, the Board 

dismissed Taylor’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the 

Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. The revised official caption is 

reflected above. The Board’s responsive brief is due 

within 21 days of the date of filing of this order. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 13-3037 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 01/29/2013
Exhibit 13.1



Certification pursuant to Section 906 Sarbanes Oxley Act by the Chief

Executive Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the Report) for the purpose of
complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Enrico Parazzini, the Chief Executive Officer of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A.,
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Telecom Italia Media S.p.A..
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 30, 2006



By:

/s/ Enrico ParazziniName:

Enrico ParazziniTitle:

Managing Director
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00167-CR

ALAN MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 241-0867-12

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In Smith County, Texas, Alan Michael Rodriguez was indicted on one count of engaging 

in organized criminal activity. Rodriguez entered an open plea of guilty. The trial court, after 

hearing argument regarding punishment, assessed a sentence of thirty-seven years’ confinement. 

The trial court ordered Rodriguez to pay court costs of $574.00, which included $300.00 for 

attorney’s fees. 

On appeal, Rodriguez argues that the trial court erred in assessing attorney’s fees because 

he was indigent. To its credit, the State agrees with Rodriguez. 

Article 26.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the costs of 

appointed counsel may be imposed against a defendant if the court finds that the defendant “has 

financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services 

provided.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2012). Where the record 

fails to establish and support a defendant’s financial ability, a trial court errs if it orders the 

reimbursement of attorney’s fees. Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 
3

Because he was indigent, the trial court appointed counsel for Rodriguez. The record 

does not reflect a change in Rodriguez’s indigent status. There is also no evidence in the record 

of Rodriguez’s ability to pay any or all of the costs for his appointed counsel. Therefore, the trial 

court erred in assessing $574.00 in costs, and we modify the judgment to correctly reflect a total 

of $274.00 in court costs.1

 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

We affirm the judgment, as modified.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: January 30, 2013

Date Decided: January 31, 2013

Do Not Publish

 1

Rodriguez remains liable for other administrative costs incurred. Williams v. State, 332 S.W.3d 694, 700 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 2001, pet. denied).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *866Wayne Sterling, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), imposed September 9, 1986, upon his conviction of criminal sale of marihuana in the first degree and attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a plea of guilty, the sentence being two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The County Court informed the defendant that it could not, in good conscience, impose the promised sentence due to the nature and extent of the crimes. The defendant was then offered the option of accepting the sentence actually imposed or withdrawing his guilty plea *(see, People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, *cert denied*419 US 1122). The court gave the defendant an adjournment for more than one week to consider this and to make a decision. On the adjourned date, the defendant expressly stated that he would not withdraw his plea of guilty and accepted the proposed sentence. The defendant had not so changed his position in reliance on the sentence promise that the withdrawal of his guilty plea would not have restored him to his original position *(cf., People v McConnell,*49 NY2d 340; *People v Danny G.,*61 NY2d 169). Therefore, he is not entitled to specific performance of the sentence promise *(see, People v Schultz,*133 AD2d 862 [decided herewith]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0013

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL ROSS TROMBLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 8, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,021
<INVENTORY>                                     71,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,367
<PP&E>                                         776,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,776,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,728
<BONDS>                                      1,206,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       906,326
<OTHER-SE>                                   (488,072)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,776,045
<SALES>                                        370,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               370,159
<CGS>                                           80,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  364,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (59,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,187)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (617)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,804)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Orlando Rivera, Appellant, v Thomas Coughlin et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of the Green Haven Correctional Facility, dated August 8, 1985, which, after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, found the petitioner guilty of violating departmental rule 113.13, involving the use of drugs, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. (Weiner, J.) *695dated May 29, 1986, which confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged with using narcotics after having been discovered unconscious in his cell. Medical tests administered at a private hospital disclosed that the petitioner had ingested morphine. The petitioner was found guilty after a hearing and the finding was affirmed on administrative appeal.

The petitioner’s claim of privilege with respect to his medical records is without merit. A claim of privilege cannot be raised for the first time on appeal *(Malus v Sperry-Rand Corp.,*2 AD2d 877, *rearg denied, lv denied*2 AD2d 967, *lv dismissed 2*NY2d 851). In addition, the physician-patient privilege was waived by the petitioner’s failure to object to the introduction of his medical records at the outset of the hearing *(see,*CPLR 4504; *Hughson v St. Francis Hosp.,*93 AD2d 491). Moreover, the petitioner’s voluntary disclosures at the hearing concerning his medical condition and treatment destroyed any privilege which might have attached to the relevant medical records *(see, Riccardi v Tampax, Inc.,*113 AD2d 880, 881; *Herbst v Bruhn,*106 AD2d 546, 549). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F R AN C I S C O J AV I E R R I VE R A- S UA Z O, A K A D a m i e n L ope z , A K A S pi de rm a n, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30353 D . C . N o. 1: 09 -c r- 00 09 0-E JL -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho E dw a r d J . L odge , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , S IL V E R M A N an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ranci sc o Javi erR i vera -S uazo appeal s the 24 0-m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is ju ry c o n v ic tio n o f c o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e in



# FI LED SEP 29 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSvi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( A ) a nd 846. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a nd w e va c a t e the s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f orr e s e nt e nc i ng. A s the go vernm entconcedes, the di stri ctcourterre d w hen i tconsi dere d R i ve r a - S ua z o’ s s t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i on i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory i ns t e a d of de t e rm i ni ng tha tthe c onvi c t i on w a s r e l e va ntc onduc t . W i thoutthe e rr or , the G u i d el i n es rag e sh o u l d h av e b een 2 6 2 -3 2 7 m o n th s, as o p p o sed t o 2 9 2 -3 6 5 m o n th s. U nd erthese ci rc um st ance s, w e c anno tconcl ud e thatthe courtw ou l d h ave i m po se d the sa m e s ent ence abse ntthe G ui del i nes e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at e R i vera S u a z o ’s s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g s o th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt's a n a ly s is can p roce ed fr om “ an i ni t i al det erm i nat i on of the corre ctG ui del i nes r ange. ” U ni te d State s v . Munoz–C am ar e na , 63 1 F . 3d 10 28 , 10 31 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( per c u r ia m ) ; s e e al

s o U ni te d State s v . H

am m ons , 55 8 F . 3d 11 00 , 11 05 –0 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( d is tr ic t c o u rt's f

a ilu r e to c a lc u la te th e c o rr e c t G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s p la in error) . B ec ause w e are re m andi ng on the basi s of an err or i n the G ui del i nes ca l cul at i on s, w e nee d n otre ac h R i vera -S uazo’ s argum ent s thatthe di stri ctcourt erre d b y run ni ng the i nst antse nt ence consec ut i ve t o the se nt ence for the st at e. See Munoz - C am ar e na , 631 F . 3d a t1031. SEN TEN C E VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED .
----

----

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

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

|                                     |                                                                                                                                           |   |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  May 26,  2011 | /s/ David K. Young                                                                                                                        |   |
|                                     | David K. Young                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                     | President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----

----
exhibit433.htm






  





  











  








EXHIBIT 4.3.3












CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY







I, JOHN M. LOWBER, the duly elected and acting Secretary of General Communication, Inc., an Alaska corporation ("Company"), do hereby certify and declare that the resolution of the Company's Board of Directors contained in the minutes of its meeting attached hereto as Exhibit 4.3.3A is a true and correct copy of that resolution as contained in those minutes duly adopted by the Company's Board of Directors at its meeting held on February 8, 2010.







Executed this 2nd day of April 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska.







GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.












By:       John M. Lowber                  


John M. Lowber, Secretary





















  





  











  










EXHIBIT 4.3.3A


EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF ACTION BY THE


BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.


FEBRUARY 8, 2010












RESOLVED, that the board of directors of General Communication, Inc. ("Company") authorizes increasing the allocation of common stock to the Company's GCI 401(k) Plan by 3,000,000 shares, including approximately 60,000 shares to cover shares previously issued through the plan as restricted shares, of Company Class A common stock ("Plan Stock");







RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Board approves filing a registration statement pursuant to the federal Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act") and, in particular, in the format of Form S-8, where such registration statement will pertain specifically to the registration of the offer of the Plan Stock and such Plan Stock will be offered or acquired through the Plan; and







RESOLVED FURTHER, that the president and other officers of the Company are directed to take such steps as are necessary to register the offer of the Plan Stock and otherwise to be in compliance with the Securities Act and other securities laws.