alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 4 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 10 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 11 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 12 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 13 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 14 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 15 of 16
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 60-5 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 16 of 16
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of U.S. MEDSYS CORP. (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony Rubino , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: March 2, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

ii .,.>.- !. 

I i 

L,.uL, 3: . --!I 

1: -~\ +,.1-,,2 :;ii,~,s;-): ,I i;. *i 2.. -I$--~I-o~ -- \! ! ' 

--.." ~.. ^."_.I.._ --- -' 

-_, 1'- -~.. 

.. 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Litigation 

1: 06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Order -------------------------------.--- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

--------.-----------------------.-- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

The Plaintiff's Steering Committee ("PSC") has 

requested an evidentiary hearing in advance of oral argument on 

the class certification motions that are currently pending before 

the Court. For the reasons discussed below, the PSC's request is 

DENIED. 

In determining whether to certify a class, a court must 

resolve any factual disputes relevant to each requirement of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In re Initial Public Offerinq 

Securities Litiqation, 471 F.3d 24, 41 (2d Cir. 2006). In 

connection with the instant class certification motion, the 

parties have created and the Court has reviewed an extensive 

evidentiary record. This record consists of the expert 

affidavits of plaintiff's dental experts, Robert E. Marx, D.D.S 

and Alistair N. Goss, D.D.Sc; plaintiff's claims administration 

expert Paul Mulholland, C.P.A., C.V.A.; defendant's medical 

expert, John Bilezikian, M.D.; defendant's expert Jeri W. Nieves, 

PH.D., an epidemiologist who specializes in osteoporosis; 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 13 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2
defendant's oral and maxillofacial expert Robert S. Glickman, 

D.M.D.; and defendant's chemistry expert, Paul A. Bartlett. The 

parties have also submitted excerpts from the deposition 

transcripts of several of these experts; the interrogatory 

responses, deposition transcripts and plaintiff profile forms 

("PPF's") of the three putative class representatives, Mr. Trent 

Nichols, Jr., M.D., Ms. Aline Trahan, and Ms. Greta V. Murphy; an 

August 2004 post-marketing safety review from the FDA's Office of 

Drug Safety; and an FDA report showing the number of cases in 

which doctors reported adverse drug experiences associated with 

Fosamax in 1996. The parties have also brought to the Court's 

attention over forty articles and chapters from the oral and 

maxiilofacial, medical and dental scientific literature 

discussing osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") and its causes, 

diagnosis, treatment and relationship to oral bisphosphonates 

such as Fosamax. 

This record provides a sufficient factual basis to 

determine whether plaintiffs' motlons meet Rule 23's requirements 

and an evidentiary hearing will not be necessary. Accordingly, 

the PSC's request is denied. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: &2~Ccy~ 3 / ' G(? 7 

/ 

( JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03467-JFK Document 13 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       UT
<CIK> 0000060549
<NAME> LOUISVILLE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         1,863,684
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                           1,088
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                              257,523
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             57,320
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,179,615
<COMMON>                                            425,170 <F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            (1,116)<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                 288,935
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                      712,989
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                          95,140
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                486,800
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                        0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      131,623
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       120,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                      633,063
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                     2,179,615
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                           689,014
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 47,616
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                          529,360
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                          576,976
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             112,038
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                    4,490
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      116,528
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             32,981
<NET-INCOME>                                         83,547
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           3,843
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        79,704
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             50,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            24,832
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              153,023
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
<FN>
<F1>Includes common stock expense of $836.
<F2>Represents unrealized gain/loss on marketable securities,
    net of taxes.
</FN>



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of K-tel International, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Philip Kives, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
| By                                                     | /s/ PHILIP KIVES |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
| Philip Kives                                           |             |
| Chairman, Chief Executive  Officer                     |             |
| (Principal executive  officer), President and Director |             |
| May 17, 2004                                           |             |
|                                                        |                  |        |  |

 

----
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

KEVIN EZELL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-55274

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01940-DSFAJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2013** 

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Ezell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

Americans with Disabilities Act action for failure to prosecute. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ash v.

Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984), and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-55274

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ezell’s action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Ezell failed properly to serve

defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) (requiring that a state-created agency be

served either by “delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its

chief executive officer” or by “serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by

that state’s law”). Plaintiff’s attempts at service did not constitute “delivery” on

defendant’s chief executive officer and did not comply with California’s

requirements for service on a state agency. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 416.50(a)

(stating that service may be effectuated on a public entity by “delivering a copy of

the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding

officer, or other head of its governing body”); see also id. § 415.20 (listing the

requirements for substituted service); id. § 415.30 (listing the requirements for

service by mail).

Ezell’s “motion for application for relief,” filed on August 10, 2012, is

denied.

AFFIRMED.
## In t he

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00154

- CR

EX PARTE GREGORY NEWSON

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- C

- 132

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Ramb in , JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

A ppellant, Gregory Newson, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion was

signed by both Newson and his appellate counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we

grant the motion. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 25, 2023

Date Decided: August 28, 2023

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit
      13.1**





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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Jacada Ltd. (the “Company”)
      for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gideon Hollander,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Tzvia Broida, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the best of our knowledge:




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




By:
            
            /s/
              Gideon HollanderGideon
              HollanderChief
                Executive Officer/s/
              Tzvia BroidaTzvia
                BroidaChief
                Financial Officer
#### HENNESSEE v. COGBURN

No. 57 PC.

Case beiow: 39 N.C. App. 627.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**FORM10-Q**

 

**Quarterended September 30, 2004**

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)Certifications**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Herbert Lindo, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Kenilworth Systems Corporation;

 

2.          Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.          Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.          The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)   Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.          The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)   Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 13, 2004 
|   | /s/ Herbert Lindo                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Herbert Lindo                                         |
|   | Chairman , President  and Principal Financial Officer |

 

----
#### STATE v. SALAME

No. 51.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 1.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 February 1975. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question.
#### AREY v. BD. OF LIGHT & WATER COMM.

No. 40PC

Case below: 50 NC App 505

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1981.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             279
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,782
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,423
<PP&E>                                         220,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,966
<BONDS>                                         10,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                   (104,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,946
<SALES>                                         68,108
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,108
<CGS>                                           62,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,452
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
(LOGO) CHARTER BANK

March 3, 2000

MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTIONS ON COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM SERVICING
STANDARDS OF UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 Charter Bank and its  subsidiary,
Charter  Mortgage  Company,  have  complied in all  material  respects  with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers.

As of and for the same  period,  Charter  Bank had in effect  fidelity  bond and
errors and  omissions  policies  in the  amounts of  $3,000,000  and  $3,000,000
respectively.


Russell Cummins
Senior Vice President
Chief Financial Officer


2130 Eubank Blvd. NE * P.O. Box 11519  * Albuquerque, New Mexico  87192-0519
505-291-3700 * Fax: 505-296-7998
#### LANE v. FAUST

No. 19 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 717.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 September 1971.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 3, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14652

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-00073-CR-J-32-MCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVAN JOSEPH ECCLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(June 3, 2010)

Before BIRCH, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sylvia A. Irvin, counsel for Ivan Joseph Eccles, has moved to withdraw from

further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Eccles’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
I-I'ED S'I'ATES L)IS'l'RICT COLlR'I' 

SOU'I'I IERN DIS'I'KICT OF YOKK 

................................................................. --4-.-- ." - 

IN RE: 

i I :06-MI)- I 789 1.1 FK) 

'/'his Dor-zlmrnr Hcllrres 721 ,l li .4c!ions 

........................... .....- -, 

OKIIFR FOR ADhIISSION I'RO HAC \'ICE 

Considering thc Certificate of Ciood Standitg and all other docu~nents rcqi~irrd by Case 

Managemcnt Order h'o. 5 submitled by counscl. 1'1 IS HERtiBY ORDEttELI that: 

Applicant's N,~me: Kobert U. Brock 

Firm Name: Iiushton. Siahely, Johnston & Gim'ctt, P.A. 

Address: Yvst Ot'ficc Box 271, 

C'il~ StatdZip: Monlgornery, Al, 16 101 

Telephonc/F3~: (334) 206-1 1 OU '(3-3 4 ) 48 1-080 1 

is adrnirrcd to praclice pro hac vice as counsel for Mercl. L Co., Inc. in the abovc captioned rase 

in the Unitcd States llisrrict Court for lhe Southern District of New York. 

Uuted: ~arch(Y2008 

Kcu. York. Ncm Yoth 

.! - 

United States District .ludgc. 

Case 1:07-cv-03461-JFK Document 26 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

POST OFFICE BOX 71 1 

MONTGOMERY. ALABAMA 36101-07 1 1 

DEBRA P HACKETT 

CLERK 

TELEPHONE 

13341 954.3600 

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING 

I, DEBRA P. HACKETT Clerk of the United States Distl-ict Court, Mjddle 

District of A lahama, 

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Robert Carmichael Brock was duly 

admitted to practice in said Court on October 1, 1984 and is in good standing as 

a member of the bar of said Cnurt. 

Dated at Montgomery, Alabama, on March 4, 2008. 

DEBRA P. HACKETT, 

CLERK 

By: , .- . 

Deputy Clerk 

Case 1:07-cv-03461-JFK Document 26 Filed 03/14/2008 Page 2 of 2