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**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory F. Hughes, Treasurerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                 | /s/ Gregory  F. Hughes                                                        |   |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:           | Gregory F. Hughes                                                             |
| Title:          | Treasurer                                                                     |
|            | Of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general  partner of the Company. |
|            |
| August 14, 2007 |

 

----
| Date:  |  November              14, 2005 |   |  /s/              Randolph F. Williams          |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   | Randolph                F. Williams                  |
|   |                                 |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                 |   |                                                 |

| Date:  |  November              14, 2005 |   |  /s/              Mary Jo David                      |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   | Mary                Jo David                              |
|   |                                 |   | Vice                President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                                 |   |                                                      |
#### In the Matter of Edwin Lamage, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 329]

Proceeding pursuant to CPDR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule which prohibits fighting. The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Reyes v Goord,*6 AD3d 781 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          APPLIED DIGITAL ACCESS, INC.
                          ----------------------------
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                          NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                 (Amounts in thousands, expect per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                             -----------------------

                                                         1994           1995           1996
                                                         ----           ----           ----

<S>                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)...........................           $10,620        $759           ($7,120)
                                                       =======        ====           =======


Reconciliation of weighted average
number of shares outstanding to amount
used in net income (loss) per share computation:


Weighted average number of
common share outstanding....................            10,542         11,806          12,084

Weighted average number of options and
warrants outstanding........................             1,549          1,042             --
                                                         -----          -----           -----

Weighted average number of common shares
and common share equivalents outstanding....            12,091         12,848          12,084
                                                        ======         ======          ======

Net income (loss) per share.................             $0.88          $0.06          ($0.59)
                                                         =====          =====          ======
</TABLE>

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

Computational Notes:
See Note 2 to Financial Statements
# CE2004078EN.01017602.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/176 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/176

---

(2004/C 78 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2846/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   European directive on transport infrastructure charging

Subject:

Regarding the draft European directive on transport infrastructure charging, can the Commission state whether airport operators in general are likely to be affected by this law and, if so, to what extent?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

(30 October 2003)

For the rail sector, infrastructure charging is already included in the first railway package (Directive 2001/14/EC (1)). As requested by the Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 and by the Brussels European Council of March 2003, the Commission presented on 23 July 2003 a proposal (2) amending Directive 1999/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999, on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (3). This new proposal concentrates on road transport, more precisely on heavy goods vehicles over 3,5 tonnes. The fact that these vehicles are involved, on a regular basis, in intra-community traffic justifies common rules concerning the charging for the use of infrastructure. Concerning the other means of transport, no Community framework is applicable to them at present.

1

2

3

More specifically for the airport sector a wide range of policy options on the Regulation of airport charges exists and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has recently developed further its policy guidance for aeronautical charges (4). A Commission proposal from 1997, though strongly inspired by generally recognised ICAO principles, did not receive sufficient support in the Council of Ministers and therefore the Commission decided to withdraw this initiative (5).

4

5

---

(1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

1

(2)  OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.

2

(3)  COM(2003) 448 final.

3

(4)  ICAO's policies on charges for airports and Air Navigation Charges — document 9082, sixth edition 2001.

4

(5)  OJ C 257, 22.8.1997 and COM(2001)763 final.

5

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,186
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,651
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,749
<INVENTORY>                                      3,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,077
<PP&E>                                          71,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,719
<BONDS>                                         83,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           50,162
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,116
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,172)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,461
<SALES>                                        165,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,527
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,725
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.16)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      855064 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1640521 
<ALLOWANCES>                               (265000)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1819942 
<PP&E>                                     7564919 
<DEPRECIATION>                            (3799194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            10212031 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       957024 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      6831 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 7908654 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              10212031 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6468334 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4928586 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           54901 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            1651115 
<INCOME-TAX>                                335743 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1315372 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               1315372 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .19 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .18 
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01040601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/406 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/406

---

(2004/C 88 E/0412)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2370/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Gang rape of women by British troops in Kenya

Subject:

It was recently reported that 650 women from the town of Isiolo in eastern Kenya have complained that they have been subjected to rape, in many cases gang rape, by British solders. There is a British army base in the region where exercises are held every year. According to their complaints, the rapes began in 1977; although the British Ministry of Defence was informed, it failed to intervene. As a result of these rapes, many women have given birth to half-cast babies and are marginalized, having been driven out by their families. Most of these women, acting with financial assistance from the Kenyan authorities, have filed law suits and are seeking compensation.

In view of:

| — | the anger and indignation caused by the sexual abuse of these women by European citizens as a form of entertainment; |
| --- | --- |

—

the anger and indignation caused by the sexual abuse of these women by European citizens as a form of entertainment;

| — | the total lack of respect for their physical and psychological integrity; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the total lack of respect for their physical and psychological integrity; and

| — | the price they and their children have to pay, in terms of marginalization and expulsion by their families, for events for which they bear no responsibility. |
| --- | --- |

—

the price they and their children have to pay, in terms of marginalization and expulsion by their families, for events for which they bear no responsibility.

Does the Commission intend to intervene to shed light on this affair and ensure that these Kenyan women receive moral and financial compensation and that the culprits receive exemplary punishment? Furthermore, what measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent such incidents of sexual violence and abuse of women in future which constitute flagrant violations of their human rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the alleged gang rape of women committed by British troops in Kenya. The Commission considers this issue one to be pursued by the Government of the Member State concerned, and for them to take appropriate measures. In this context the Commission would like to draw attention to the report of Amnesty International entitled ‘Decades of Impunity: Serious allegations of Rape of Kenyan Women by UK Army Personnel’ which notes that in April 2003 the British Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch (RMP-SIB) opened an investigation into a number of rape allegations.

---
Addendum No. 1 to the Binding Site Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.29

 Addendum No. 1 to the Distribution Agreement 

This Addendum No. 1 to the Distribution Agreement (the “Addendum”) is made and entered into as of this 1st day of
February, 2007, by and between diaDexus, Inc. (“DIADEXUS”), and The Binding Site (“BINDING SITE”). 
 WHEREAS, BINDING SITE and DIADEXUS are parties to a Distribution Agreement effective January 30, 2007 (the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend such Agreement to insert the following language. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements, mutual representations and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 In
Section 3(j) after “such records.” please insert the following language: “BINDING SITE will inform DIADEXUS of any customer complaints related to the Products within 48 hours of becoming aware of the complaint. DIADEXUS will
inform BINDING SITE of complaint information relevant to BINDING SITE services. BINDING SITE will take appropriate corrective action and inform DIADEXUS of action taken. DIADEXUS will process and report any needed Medical Device Reporting (MDR) (per
U.S. 21 CFR Section 803) as appropriate to the FDA. BINDING SITE will assist as needed and requested by DIADEXUS. DIADEXUS will, if the need arises, determine the requirements for and coordinate product recall activities of the Products.
BINDING SITE will assist as needed and requested by DIADEXUS.” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Addendum to be executed by their fully authorized representatives. 
  

											
	BINDING SITE	 		 	DIADEXUS	 	
						
	BY:	 	 /s/ R. Rowland
	 		 	BY:	 	 /s/ Patrick Plewman
	 	
	Printed Name: R. Rowland	 		 	Printed Name: Patrick Plewman	 	
				
	Title: CEO	 		 	Title: President & CEO	 	


											
						
	Date:	 	     2/2/07
	 		 	Date:	 	     2/1/07
EXHIBIT (23)


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
   on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. of our report dated February 3,
   1997, included in the 1996 Annual Report of Shareholders of LaCrosse
   Footwear, Inc.

   We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
   Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-77516, 33-77518 and 333-2702) pertaining
   to the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. Employees' Retirement Savings Plan, the
   LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. Union Employees' Retirement Savings Plan and the
   LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. 1993 Employee Stock Incentive Plan of our report
   dated February 3, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
   statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report dated February
   3, 1997, with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
   Annual Report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. for the year ended
   December 31, 1996.



                                           McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

   La Crosse, Wisconsin
   March 27, 1997
STATE v. Gregory Aldon PERKINS.

No. 332PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

G. Glenn Gerding, Chapel Hill, for Perkins, Gregory Aldon.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of October 2015 by Defendant to Withdraw as Private Assigned Counsel:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6664

JOSEPH EVANS, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cv-000326-REP)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Evans, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Winston Stallard,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Evans, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.

2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and 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
#### Tara Snolis et al., Appellants, v John F. Biondo, Defendant, and American Suzuki Automotive Credit, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 919]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated October 21, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendant American Suzuki Automotive Credit to dismiss the amended verified complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly declined to apply the relation-*547back doctrine to this case on the ground that the plaintiffs added the defendant American Suzuki Automotive Credit as a party more than one year after they ascertained its identity and more than six months after they certified the case ready for trial. The Supreme Court was justified in denying the plaintiffs the benefit of the doctrine to prevent disruption in the normal course of the lawsuit and prejudice to American Suzuki Automotive Credit *(see Buran v Coupal,*87 NY2d 173, 181 [1995]; *Cintron v Lynn,*306 AD2d 118, 120 [2003]; *Williams v Majewski,*291 AD2d 816, 818 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.