alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2
















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, M.D. Ranganath, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infosys Limited for the year ended March 31, 2017, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained
in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Infosys Limited.









|                    | /s/ M.
    D. RANGANATH                                
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                    |                                                        
|Date: June 12, 2017 | M. D. Ranganath
        Chief Financial
        Officer
Exhibit 32.1




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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




1.           the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 16, 2011
/s/ Gary E. RobinetteGary E. RobinettePresident and Chief Executive Officer
Ray Mabus has been substituted for his predecessor, Donald Winter,

 *

as Secretary, Department of the Navy under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent **

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR ROSE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RAY MABUS , Secretary, Department of *

Navy and acting in his individual capacity

acting within the course and scope of his

authority at NAS Miramar San Diego

(Marine Corps Air Station Miramar),

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-55125

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01471-BTMBLM

MEMORANDUM**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2012*** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

JUL 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-55125

Arthur Rose appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his

employment action under Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment. White

v. City of Sparks, 500 F.3d 953, 955 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rose’s retaliation

claim based on his performance evaluation because Rose failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether there was a causal connection between his

alleged protected activity and the evaluation, and whether defendant’s legitimate,

non-discriminatory reason for the evaluation comments and ratings were a pretext

for retaliation. See Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1065-66 (9th Cir.

2004) (setting forth the framework for analyzing a retaliation claim and explaining

that evidence of pretext must be specific and substantial); Villiarimo v. Aloha

Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002) (eighteen-month lapse

between protected activity and an adverse employment action is too long to give

rise to an inference of causation).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rose’s retaliatory

harassment claim because Rose failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as

to whether the alleged conduct was because of his protected activity, or was

sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment. See Ray
3 11-55125

v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing retaliatory

harassment).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Rose’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Ricky Daniel WAGONER

326P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Ricky D. Wagoner, for Wagoner, Ricky D.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of November 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 




 
 UTHO IN U.S.A. NUMBER 1 SHARES SERIES A NONCUMULATIVE
PERPETUAL PREFERRED STOCK CMS BANCORP, INC. Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware Authorized Series A Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, $0.01Par Value This Certifies that is the registered holder of Shares of the Series A
Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock of the above corporation, which are fully paid and non-assessable transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by allorney upon surrender of this Certificate properby
endorsed. In Illitness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this day of A.D. John ritacco President Steve Dowd, Secretary AMERICAN
SUPERIOR © 1988 







 



 
 THE SECURITIES EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ANY STATE SECURITIES LAWS, BUT HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE REGISTERED HOLDER HEREOF FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT AND IN RELIANCE ON STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, AND UNDER ALL APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS. THESE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD, PLEDGED, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT AND UNDER APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS, OR IN A TRANSACTION WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND” UNDER PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS; AND IN THE CASE OF AN EXEMPTION, ONLY IF CMS BANCORP, INC. HAS RECEIVED
AN OPINION OF COUNSEL THAT SUCH TRANSACTION DOES NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF THE SHARES OF STOCK, WHICH OPINION AND WHICH COUNSEL SHALL BE SATISFACTORY; TO CMS BANCORP, INC. IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION. The following abbreviations, when used in the
inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM TEN ENT JT TEN as tenants in common as tenants by the entireties as joint tenants with right
of survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- (Cust) under Uniform Gifts Act Custodian (Minor) to Minors (State ) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the
within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated’ In presence of
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, William H. Roj, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ERICO International Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date: May 9, 2006 By: /s/ William H. Roj           Name: William H. Roj    Title: Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director
STATE v. Ricky Daniel WAGONER

326P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Ricky D. Wagoner, for Wagoner, Ricky D.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of November 2018 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00629-CR

Kevin Apolinar JOHNS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR2450

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 10, 2019.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

 

                In connection with the QuarterlyReport of AventineRenewable Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ajay Sabherwal, ChiefFinancial Officer of AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge and belief:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

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

 

                A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and willbe retained by AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ajay Sabherwal      |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Ajay Sabherwal          |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | November 7, 2007        |   |

 

 

40

----
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey R. Steinhilber, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ERICOInternational Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 3, 2004 By: /s/ Jeffrey R. Steinhilber    Name: Jeffrey R. Steinhilber Title: Chief Financial Officer and Director
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60259

Summary Calendar

 

YASSIN SHEIK HAMUD,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A77 008 260

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

March 7, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yassin Sheik Hamud is a native of Somalia who attempted to

enter this country in May 1999 with a fraudulent passport. This

fraud was discovered, and removal proceedings were instituted

against him. He conceded deportability and sought asylum,

withholding of removal, and, in the alternative, voluntary

departure. After conducting a hearing, an immigration judge

denied all of his claims and ordered him removed from the United
No. 02-60259

-2-

States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Hamud’s

appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) because he failed

to file a brief or statement after indicating that he would do so

in his notice of appeal. Hamud now petitions this court for

review of the BIA’s decision. Hamud has failed to brief, and has

thus waived, the central issue whether the BIA erred in summarily

dismissing his appeal. See Strong v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc.,

137 F.3d 844, 853 (5th Cir. 1998). Because he has waived this

issue, he has not shown that the BIA erred in relying on 8 C.F.R.

§ 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) to summarily dismiss his appeal. Accordingly,

his petition for review is DENIED.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON COURTNEY LOGAN v. LISA HELTON ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hardeman County

No. 19646 Kasey Culbreath, Judge 

## FILED DEC 06 2023 No. W2023-00063-COA-R3-CV Clerkoft Red13y Appellant, Courtney Logan, appealed a December 7, 2022 order ofthe Hardeman County Chancery Court. Because the order appealed is not a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). The appeal is dismissed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed.


### J. STEVEN STAFFORD,P.J., W.S.;ARNOLD B.

### GOLDIN,J..;CARMA DENNISMCGEE,J. Courtney R. Logan, Whiteville, Tennessee,pro se, appellant. Andrée Sophia Blurnstein, Solicitor General, for the appellees, Tennessee Departrnent of Corrections, and Commissioner, TN. Dept. ofCorrection.
MEMORANDUM OPINION' Pursuant to the requirements of Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, on October 31, 2023, the Court directed Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be disrnissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction after it became clear that there was no final judgrnent from which an appeal as of right would lie. "A final

Rule 10 ofthe Rules ofthe Court ofAppeals provides: ThisCourt, with the concurrence ofalljudges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided bymemorandum opinion it shall be designated "MEMORANDUM OPINION," shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the case, 'leaving nothing else for the trial

court to do.'"In re Estate ofHenderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quotingState ex rel. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)). This Court does not have subject matterjurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal as ofright ifthere is no final judgment. See BayberryAssocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990) ("Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts havejurisdiction over finaljudgments only."). Specifically, Appellant, who is incarcerated, appealed a December 7, 2022 order of the trial court that denied his request to be transported to appear in a civil case. This is not a final order, as it does not resolve any claims between any parties. Although Appellant filed a response to this Court's October 31, 2023 Show Cause Order, the response failed to show good cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack ofa finaljudgment. Inthe absence offinaljudgment,thisCourt lacksjurisdiction toconsiderthis appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Thus, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs on appeal are taxed to Appellant, Courtney Logan, for which execution may issue.
PER CURIUM

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RRC
OPERATING PARTNERSHIP OF GEORGIA L.P.'S REPORT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER  31, 1999

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001066253
<NAME>                                         RRC OPERATING PART GEORGIA, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    15,752
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             47,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                 5,623,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                           437,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         5,266,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             1,193,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           5,266,844
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         774,108
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            181,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         131,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       226,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          234,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      234,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             234,329
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.00


</TABLE>