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
 
 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of State Financial Services Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, based on his knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six months ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Michael J. Falbo
 
 Michael J. Falbo
 August 9, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
 
 Daniel L. Westrope
 August 9, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 25, 2019

No. 04-17-00849-CV

MCJAM, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CD AUTO SERVICE, INC.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CV-04322

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice (not participating)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On January 4, 2019, appellee filed (1) a motion for extension of time to file a motion for 

rehearing and (2) a motion for rehearing. The motion for extension of time to file a motion for 

rehearing is GRANTED. The motion for rehearing is DENIED.

It is so ORDERDED on January 25, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: __________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 35.1****SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**I, Barry E. Pakenham, Treasurer of Monongahela Power Company (the “Servicer”), certify that:(a) A review of the Servicer’s activities during the reporting period covered by this Report onForm 10-K and of its performance under that certain Transferred Environmental Control PropertyServicing Agreement dated as of April 11, 2007 between MP Environmental Funding LLC and theServicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period,except that the Servicer maintained environmental control property documentation at a sitedifferent than the site specified in the transaction agreementDate:March 28, 2008/s/ Barry E. Pakenham Name: Barry E. Pakenham
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAVID ALBERT BONIELLA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 58 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
`
 

 

 

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 of White Dental Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Mike White, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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/ Nancy White

     Nancy White

     Chief Executive Officer

     April 9, 2008

 

/s/ Mike White

     Mike White

     Chief Financial Officer

     April 9, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
`
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11290 Conference Calendar

KIERON DEREK PENIGAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CV-88

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kieron Derek Penigar, Texas prisoner # 721657, appeals the magistrate judge’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Penigar argues that he has been “involuntarily exposed to hordes of pornographic material and immoral sexual behavior” and that the policy of permitting inmates to receive and possess this material places him at risk of being sexually assaulted.No. 01-11290 -2- We review the magistrate judge’s dismissal for an abuse of discretion. See Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 1999). Penigar does not identify any constitutional right that has been allegedly violated, cites no legal authority, and offers only the conclusional and speculative assertion that he is at greater risk because of the presence of the pornography. Conclusional allegations are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Baker v. Putnal , 75 F.3d 190, 195 (5th Cir.1996). To the extent that Penigar is raising a failure-toprotect claim, he has failed to show that Johnson was both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and that he drew the inference. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833, 837 (1994). Penigar’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it should be dismissed. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Penigar is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is incarcerated of detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5206 

To allow Foreign Service and other executive agency employees to designate 

beneficiaries of their death benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON (for himself and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow Foreign Service and other executive agency 

employees to designate beneficiaries of their death benefits. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REVISION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF DEATH 

4 GRATUITIES FOR FOREIGN SERVICE AND 

5 OTHER EXECUTIVE AGENCY EMPLOYEES. 

6 Section 413 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 

7 U.S.C. 3973) is amended— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5206 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ‘‘designated 

2 beneficiaries or’’ before ‘‘surviving dependents’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ‘‘designated 

4 beneficiaries or’’ before ‘‘survivors’’; 

5 (3) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘survivors and 

6 beneficiaries’’ and inserting ‘‘designated beneficiaries 

7 then survivors’’; 

8 (4) by striking subsection (d); and 

9 (5) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub10 section (d). 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 filing of China Crescent Enterprises, Inc.’s (the “Company”)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
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 results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:  November
19, 2009





/s/ Paul K.
Danner


Name:  Paul
K. Danner


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer





Dated:  November
19, 2009





/s/ Philip J.
Rauch


Name:  Philip
J. Rauch


Title:  Chief
Financial Officer
#### Henry Schmid, Appellant, v. Christian Maeurer, Respondent.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide event. Opinion by

Bartlett, J.
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




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of LRI Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: October 4, 2011





/s/ Amy L. BertauskiAmy L. BertauskiChief Financial Officer and Treasurer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report.
#### Matter of the Accounting of the Brooklyn Trust Company, as Executor of John G. Kimm.

— Order affirming order made by surrogate, without costs.*
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Noah Willis ALTIZER, Appellant, v. Edward J. HENDRICK, Superintendent of Philadelphia County Prisons.

No. 15128.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 6, 1965.

Decided June 23, 1965.

Charles H. Frey, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Gordon Gelfond, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee (Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief).

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this petition of a Pennsylvania prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus it is contended that opportunity to appeal the original convictions in the state courts was abridged by the refusal of the state to provide counsel for the accused. The district court dismissed the petition because this contention had not at any time been submitted to a state court.

On this appeal counsel for the state has represented that the state will cooperate in the obtaining of a full and speedy hearing in the state courts on the merits of the petitioner’s contentions.

In these circumstances, we think it will best serve all interests here involved to direct that the district court vacate its order dismissing this petition and stay further proceedings in this case until the petitioner shall have had an opportunity to present the question of denial of counsel to an appropriate state court.

The judgment will be vacated and the cause remanded for disposition in accordance with this opinion.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1361 CA 11-02326**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

DR. JOHN CHONG-HWAN WEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
NATIONAL GRID, JOHN J. WEISBECK, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

JOHN CHONG-HWAN WEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE.
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (JENNIFER CASTALDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, A.J.), entered September 16, 2011. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Empire Ins. Co. v Food City , 167 AD2d 983, 984).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Henry H. Skinner, Administrator, etc., v. Prospect Park and Coney Island Railroad Company.

— Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
#### James H. Bouton, Respondent, v. Thomas S. Smith, Appellant.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### In the Matter of Nathan B. Chadsey, an Attorney.

Motion denied, with leave to renew application after the six months have expired. Order to be settled on notice.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1914 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 10:55:47 Page 1 of

1
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 1, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

05-30973

AUDREY BUSFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette

No. 6:03-CV-1235

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This appeal is from a judgment awarded to the plaintiff,

Audrey Busfield, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act for

injuries she suffered as a result of a negligent performance of a

chemical peel at a Veterans Administration Medical Center. We

affirm.

After an eight-day bench trial, the district court found in
2

favor of the plaintiff with respect to each of the three counts of

negligence and further found that the negligence of the defendant,

the government, proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. The

government does not appeal liability. 

The government appeals the district court’s decision awarding

a substantial amount of specific and general damages. In an

eighty-seven page ruling, the district court found that “[t]he

chemical peel that ultimately was performed reached into the

reticular dermis, leading to severe scarring, scar contracture, and

the plaintiff has suffered by all evidence and testimony presented

permanent disfiguring and muscle involvement.” 

The record reveals that the chemical peel caused the skin on

Busfield’s face and neck to become scarred. This scar contracture

has pulled her head down and to the right. In the nine years since

the chemical peel, the plaintiff endured numerous plastic surgeries

and hundreds upon hundreds of visits to various health care

providers in an attempt to mitigate the physical and psychological

damage. The evidence further indicates that Busfield will undergo

more surgeries. 

The government complains that the damages are excessive and

invokes the maximum recovery rule. The government also claims that

the general damages were duplicative of certain specific damages.

We have considered the arguments and find that the government has

not shown clear error, nor any error that requires reversal of the

district court’s judgment.
3

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in JMP Group Inc. Registration Statement No. 333-161538 on Form S-3 and JMP Group Inc. Registration Statement No. 333-142956 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 31, 2009, relating to theconsolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2008 of New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JMP Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

New York, NewYork 

March 8, 2010
Exhibit 10.1


 



 

	
Amended Notice of   Stock Option Grant
    	
Unwired   Planet, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
ID: 94-3219054
    
	
 
    	
20 First Street,   First Floor
    
	
 
    	
Los Altos, CA 94022
    



 



 

	
Boris Teksler
    	
Option Number:
    	
N/A
    
	
60 Doud Drive
    	
Plan:
    	
N/A
    
	
Los Altos, CA 94022
    	
Vesting Commencement Date:
    	
June 1, 2015
    
	
 
    	
Amended Notice Date:
    	
June 15, 2016
    



 



 

Having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the Company’s stockholders of record at a special meeting held on June 15, 2016, this Amended Notice now amends and replaces the “Termination Period” section of your original Notice of Stock Option Grant with the following:

 

Termination Period

 

This Option, to the extent then exercisable, may be exercised for a period of 12 months after termination of your service in any capacity (either as an employee, member of the Board of Directors or as a consultant).  You are responsible for keeping track of these exercise periods.  The Company has no duty to, and will not, provide further notice of such periods.

 

Except as amended herein the original Notice of Stock Option Grant remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

 

Acknowledgement and Agreement

 

By signing below, you agree to all terms applicable to your stock option grant provided to you in writing.

 

Please sign this Amended Notice and return an original copy to Kathlene Smith by regular mail, or you may scan and email the document to her.

 

 

 

	
/s/ Boris Teksler
    	
6/15/2016
    	
 
    	
/s/ Richard S. Chernicoff
    	
15 Jun 2016
    	
 
    
	
Boris Teksler
    	
Date
    	
 
    	
Richard Chernicoff
    	
Date
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Chairman of the Board
** **

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGEACT OF 1934

 

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14578

 

 

HCW PENSION REAL ESTATE FUND LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP 

(Exact name of registrant issuer as specified in its charter)

 

 

  

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  [X] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes __ No   X_
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT COMPANY
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) FOR FEBRUARY 28, 1999 AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                       274
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,204
<INVENTORY>                                         68
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,268
<PP&E>                                          18,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,248
<BONDS>                                         13,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,685
<COMMON>                                         3,758
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,274
<SALES>                                         26,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,674
<CGS>                                           32,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,310
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                       810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,387
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,387
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SANDRA A. ZIKRY,

Appellant,

v.

EXODUS WOMEN'S CENTER, INC.; TAMPA OBSTETRICS, P.A.; JILL L. 

HETCHMAN M.D.; GINA WASHINGTON M.D.; and SOBIAH MALLICK 

M.D.,

Appellees.

No. 2D22-2010

December 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, 

Judge.

Sandra A. Zikry, pro se.

Jason M. Azzarone and Louis J. La Cava of La Cava Jacobson & Goodis, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### The American Distributing Company, Appellant, v. Edward W. Ashley, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.