alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32**

 

**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 of Lannett Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur P. Bedrosian, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Keith R. Ruck, the Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                        The Report complies with the requirements of Section13(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.

 

 
| Dated:  November 12, 2009 | /s/Arthur  P. Bedrosian                                     |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                                        |
|                           |  Arthur P. Bedrosian,                                  |
|                           |  President and Chief Executive Officer                 |
|                           |                                                        |
|                           |                                                        |
| Dated:  November 12, 2009 | /s/Keith  R. Ruck                                           |
|                           |                                                        |
|                           |  Keith R. Ruck,                                        |
|                           |  Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
#### STATE v. CAMPBELL

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 398.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 April 1977.
#### DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

No. 61 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 541

Petition by defendant McDonald for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 January 1981.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ISSUER'S INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED JUNE 30, 1997, SET FORTH IN THE
ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6 MONTHS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                             518
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                       352
<INVENTORY>                                      4,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,304
<PP&E>                                          33,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,012
<BONDS>                                          7,579
<COMMON>                                           819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,272
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,863
<SALES>                                         24,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,259
<CGS>                                           18,864
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    920
<INCOME-TAX>                                       385
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       535
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 34 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### OVERTON v. BOYCE

No. 52 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 680.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 October 1975.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
             -------------------------------------------------------

                         CHASE CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST
             (formerly known as Chemical Master Credit Card Trust I)
             -------------------------------------------------------

         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of JPMorgan Chase
Bank (formerly known as The Chase Manhattan Bank), a banking corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York ("JPMCB"), as
Servicer pursuant to the Third Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated as of November 15, 1999 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement")
by and among JPMCB, Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, National Association and The Bank
of New York, as trustee (the "Trustee") does hereby certify that:

         1.       JPMCB is the Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing
                  Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Pooling and
                  Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
                  the Trustee.

         3.       This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.5 of the
                  Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

         4.       A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar
                  year ended December 31, 2003 was conducted under the
                  supervision of the undersigned.

         5.       Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of the
                  knowledge of the undersigned, fully performed all its
                  obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
                  throughout such period and no default in the performance of
                  such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set
                  forth in paragraph 6 below.

         6.       The following is a description of each default in the
                  performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions
                  of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, including any
                  Supplement, known to the undersigned to have been made during
                  such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each
                  such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any,
                  to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status of
                  each such default: NONE


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 30th day of March, 2004.

                                       JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
                                       as Servicer


                                       By: /s/ Miriam K. Haimes
                                           -------------------------------------
                                       Name:  Miriam K. Haimes
                                       Title: Senior Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------- X

JOSEPH STEVENS & COMPANY, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 07 CV 3385

DAVID CIKANEK, HON. BARBARA JONES

Respondent. 

------------------------------------------------------------- X

REPLY DECLARATION OF LESLIE A. BLAU

IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER

I, LESLIE A. BLAU, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before the courts of the states of New York and

Illinois and the bar of this Court. I represent David Cikanek in this matter. As part of my

representation, he is required to pay any resulting expenses including airfare, hotel and other

travel expenses.

2. I submit this reply declaration in further support of David Cikanek’s Motion to Dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction or alternatively to transfer the proceeding to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

3. This is a petition by Joseph Stevens & Company, Inc. (“Stevens”) to vacate an arbitration

award in David Cikanek v. Joseph Stevens & Co., Inc., Kevin Brody, Leonard Inserra and Ross

Inserra, NASD Case No. 06-01868 (the “Arbitration”). 

4. On June 8, 2007, Renan Sugarman and I called Alison Cohen, representing the Petitioner

in this action, and asked her for an extension “to answer or otherwise move.” I sent an e-mail to

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 22 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
her the same day, also specifically asking for an extension “to answer or otherwise move.” A

copy of that e-mail appears as Exhibit A to this declaration. 

5. On June 20, 2007, I called Elisa Dreier Reporting Corp. about the transcript of the first

two days of the Arbitration (March 19 and 20, 2007) and spoke to a man named Joseph. He told

me that Stevens’ law firm, Nixon Peabody LLC, had already ordered and received a copy of the

entire transcript of those first two days. 

6. I spoke to one of the attorneys for Stevens, who told me that if I wanted a copy of the

transcript, I would have to pay for my own copy. I offered to split the cost with Stevens’

counsel, but they refused. 

7. That same day, June 20, 2007, I faxed a letter to one of Stevens’ attorneys, stating that I

believed they had a duty to supply the transcript, and an entire copy of the arbitration record, to

this Court. I also reminded Alison Cohen, one of Stevens’ counsel, that I had offered to split the

cost with her law firm, and I reminded her that they had refused my offer. A copy of my letter

appears as Exhibit B to this declaration.

8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and

correct.

Executed this 9 day of July, 2007 th

Chicago, Illinois

______________________________

 Leslie A. Blau

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 22 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, October 25, 2007, 9 a.m. to October 26, 2007, 5 p.m. Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 16, 2007, 7246093.                

The meeting notice is being amended due to the meeting dates changing from October 25-26, 2007 to October 25, 2007. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 19, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4811 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### REDMON v. GUARANTY CO.

No. 135 PC.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 704.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 August 1974.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00258

- CV

NAN CANION v. ROBERTS, ROBERTS, ODEFEY & WITTE

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Calhoun County , Texas Trial Cause No. 11

- 10

- 1482

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered th is cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for obser vance. July 3, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              46
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                      3,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,621
<PP&E>                                          10,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,544
<BONDS>                                          4,767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,237
<SALES>                                         16,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,605
<CGS>                                           10,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (13)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,323)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03455-RJH Document 31 Filed 04/10/2008 Page 8 of 8
#### STATE v. EDWARDS

No. 121 PC

Case below: 49 NC App 547

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 February 1981. Motion of defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 February 1981.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED PREMIER PROMOTIONS USA D/B/A PREMIER 1 AUTOGLASS A/A/O DEBRA SLADE ,

Appellant , v. Case N o
. 5D 21 -1267 LT Ca se No . 2018- SC -026255-O
PROGRESSIVE S ELECT I NSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 15, 2022 Nonfinal Appeal from t he C ounty Cour t for Orange C ounty, Carly S. Wish, Ju dge. Earl I. Higg s, Jr., o f Higgs Law , P.A. , Orlando , for A ppellant. Lissette M

. Gonzale z, o f Cole , Scott & K issane , P.A., M iami, for A ppellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. NCI, LL C v. Progressive Select Ins. , No

. 5D21-1282, 2022 WL 1 6702296 (Fla

. 5th DCA No v. 4 , 2022).
SASSO , TRAVER and NARDELLA , JJ. , concur.
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40572

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

TONY RAY MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CR-15)

December 12, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant, Tony Ray Martin, pleaded guilty to one count of

making false statements in connection with renewal of a loan from

the Agricultural Production Credit Association. Over Martin’s

objection, the district court increased his base offense level two

points for more than minimal planning. Appellant contends that the
2

district court erred because, in so doing, it relied on other false

statements regarding the collateral for the loan which he made

during a seven month period preceding the renewal of the loan. We

disagree and affirm.

Whether a defendant has engaged in more than minimal planning

is a question of fact which we review for clear error. United

States v. McCord, 33 F.3d 1434, 1454 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

115 S.Ct. 2558 (1995). Appellant does not contend that the

district court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous but only

that his earlier conduct does not relate to the crime to which he

pled. The sentencing guidelines define more than minimal planning

as “more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in

a simple form.” Section 1B1.1, comment. More than minimal

planning “is deemed present in any case involving repeated acts

over a period of time, unless it is clear that each was purely

opportune.” Id. 

Martin first represented to the APCA that he owned twenty-nine

head of cattle, which he did not. He later falsely represented to

the APCA that he was leasing in connection with his operation two

tracts of land, one containing 125 acres and one containing 60

acres. As a result of these representations, he was given the

initial loan. He received three advances on that loan. Later he

represented that he owned forty-three head of cattle on each of the

two tracts. He owned none of the cattle. As a result of that

representation he obtained a third advance. He then renewed the

loan making further misrepresentations to which he pleaded guilty.
3

The misrepresentations made in securing the loan and obtaining the

advances were repeated acts over a period of time which resulted in

part in the renewal for which he plead guilty. 

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE v. OWEN

No. 7P82.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 429.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 27 January 1982.
#### GOODWIN v. BALDWIN’S INC.

No. 425P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 709.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 August 1982.
Case 7:07-cv-03502-CLB Document 2 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We
      consent to the use, in the registrations statement on Form 10 KSBA of Skye
      International Inc (Formerly Tankless Systems Worldwide Inc), of our report
      dated
      June 9,  2006
      on
      our audit of the financial statements of Skye International Inc (Formerly
      Tankless Systems Worldwide Inc) as of December 31, 2004, and the related
      statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then
      ended, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”





*/s/
      Moore & Associates, Chartered*


Moore
      & Associates Chartered


Las
      Vegas, Nevada


June
      9,
      2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1844

CHANDER KANT; ASHIMA K. KANT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

JAY L. COHEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:08-

cv-00318-RWT)

Submitted: January 6, 2012 Decided: March 8, 2012

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chander Kant, Ashima K. Kant, Appellants Pro Se. Jay L. Cohen, 

Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chander Kant and Ashima K. Kant appeal the district 

court’s order affirming the clerk’s order taxing costs. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Kant v. Cohen, No. 8:08-cv-00318-RWT (D. Md. filed July 11, 

2011; entered July 12, 2011). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

 

 

/s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.

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

Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2007

 

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

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

 

 

 

/s/ Beverly A. Cummings

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

Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2007