alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 / 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS  I, Stephen Spalding, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Cytta Corp.  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included 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 periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining 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
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.    Date:
 January 12, 2010 /s/
Stephen Spalding Stephen
Spalding Principal
Executive and Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Carreker, Jr.,Chief Executive 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   |                                                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| /s/    | JOHN D. CARREKER, JR.                               |   |
|   | John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                                |
|   |                                                |
|        |                                                     |  |

Dated:    June 8, 2006

----
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4141 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 15:22:56 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4141 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 15:22:56 Page 2 of

2
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership (the“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ronald Brown, the President and a Director of the Partnership’sGeneral Partner, NewReal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.
|        | /s/ RONALD BROWN                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald Brown                            |
|   | Principal Executive Officer             |
|   | (President and Director of              |
|   | the Partnership’s General Partner, |
|   | NewReal, Inc.)                     |

 

November 9, 2006

----
NO. 07-05-0175-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

MAY 23, 2005

______________________________

RICK MARION HUBBARD, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 45,667-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Rick Marion Hubbard was convicted of

engaging in organized criminal activity, and on January 12, 2005, punishment was

assessed at 18 months confinement. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial; his notice

of appeal was filed on April 18, 2005. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
1Appellant may have recourse by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus

returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal. Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

2

When a timely motion for new trial is filed, a notice of appeal is due to be filed with

the trial court clerk within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.2(a)(2). The deadline may be extended if, within 15 days, the party files the notice and

a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time is filed

within the 15-day window, this Court does not have jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in

any manner other than by dismissal for want of jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d

519, 523 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996) (en banc). See also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209-10

(Tex.Cr.App. 1998). Additionally, we do not have authority to invoke Rule 2 of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure in an effort to obtain jurisdiction of the case. Thus, we cannot

create jurisdiction where none exists. Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. 

Appellant’s sentence was imposed on January 12, 2005, and following his timely

motion for new trial, the deadline in which to file his notice of appeal, including the 15-day

window, was extended to April 27, 2005. Although his notice filed on April 18, fell within the

15-day extension period, it was not accompanied by a motion for extension of time. 

Accordingly, the purported appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.22 
 

 
  

			
	 DexCom, Inc.
 6340 Sequence Drive
 San Diego, CA 92121
	  	 Edwards Lifesciences, LLC
 One Edwards Way

Irvine, CA 92614


 May 5, 2009 
 On
November 10, 2008, Edwards Lifesciences LLC (“Edwards”) and DexCom, Inc. (“DexCom”) entered into a Collaboration Agreement (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which DexCom, in part, agreed to undertake certain
development obligations, and Edwards agreed to fund DexCom’s development obligations related to an in-hospital blood glucose monitoring system. Under the Agreement, DexCom’s development obligations include, among other things, completion
of clinical trials for the first generation product under development to support an application for regulatory approval (the “Clinical Trials”). 
 During the course of the collaboration, Edwards and DexCom have agreed that Edwards will lead and fund a portion of the Clinical Trials. As a result, Edwards’ development funding obligation to DexCom under the Agreement shall be
reduced by $1,500,000, which is the amount estimated to complete the relevant portion of the Clinical Trials. 
 By signing below, each of Edwards and DexCom
acknowledge that Edwards shall be responsible for leading and funding a portion of the Clinical Trials, and that Edwards’ development funding obligations to DexCom pursuant to the Agreement shall be reduced by a total of $1,500,000 over the
period from April 2009 through September 2009, which is equal to the costs to complete the portion of the Clinical Trials for which Edwards shall be responsible. The parties acknowledge that all other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

 Acknowledged and Agreed, 
  

									
	Edwards Lifesciences LLC	 		 	DexCom, Inc.
			
	 /s/    John Kehl, Jr.
	 		 	 /s/    Terrance Gregg

	By:	 	John Kehl, Jr.	 		 	By:	 	Terrance Gregg 
	Title:	 	Corporate Vice President	 		 	Title:	 	President & CEO
	Date:	 	May 5, 2009	 		 	Date:	 	May 5, 2009

 6340 Sequence Drive 
 San Diego, CA 92121 
 858.200.0200    858.200.0201(fax)

 www.dexcom.com
#### STATE v. ALFORD LINDOR SCOTT.

(Filed 24 November, 1954.)

1. Indictment § 9—

The allegations in a bill of indictment must particularize the crime charged and be sufficiently explicit to protect the defendant against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.

S. Indictment § 13—

While a motion to quash is the more appropriate method of raising the question whether the bill of indictment charges the commission of any criminal offense, motion in arrest of judgment may be used to the same end.

3. Arrest § 3—

An indictment charging that defendant did unlawfully “resist, delay and obstruct a public officer in discharge and attempting to discharge the duty of his office . . .” is insufficient to charge the offense of resisting arrest. G.S. 14-223.

Appeal by defendant from *Stevens, J.,*June Term 1954, Waee. Beversed.

Criminal prosecution under two bills of indictment in which it is charged that defendant did unlawfully (1) “operate an automobile upon the public highways of Wake County while then and there being under the influence of intoxicating liquors . . .” and (2) “resist, delay and obstruct a public officer in discharge and attempting to discharge the duty of his office . .

In the court below the jury returned a verdict of not guilty under the first bill of indictment and a verdict of guilty under the second bill charging resisting an officer in violation of Gr.S. 14-223. Defendant in apt time demurred to the evidence under Gr.S. 15-173. After verdict he moved in arrest of judgment, which motion was denied. The court pronounced judgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*Pittman & Staton and Edwin B. Hatch, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Barnhill, C. J.

The bill of indictment fails to meet the test set forth in *S. v. Sumner,*232 N.C. 386, 61 S.E. 2d 84, and other decisions of like *179import. Tbe allegations in a bill of indictment must particularize tbe crime charged and be sufficiently explicit to protect tbe defendant against a subsequent prosecution for tbe same offense. Tbis tbe bill of indictment appearing in tbis record fails to do. *S. v. Morgan,*226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; *S. v. Cochran,*230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663.

While a motion to quash is tbe most appropriate method of raising tbe question whether tbe bill of indictment charges tbe commission of any criminal offense, motion in arrest of judgment may be used to tbe same end. *S. v. Cochran, supra.*

*S. v. Raynor,*235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E. 2d 155, and *S. v. Thorne,*238 N.C. 392, 78 S.E. 2d 140, are directly in point. What is said in tbe opinions in those cases is controlling here.

Tbe defendant is entitled to bis discharge. To that end tbe judgment entered in the court below is arrested.

Reversed.
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 Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rob
Hutchison,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been provided to Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. and will be retained by Applied DNA
Sciences,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

Date:  February 14, 2005                    By: /s/ ROB HUTCHISON
                                                ------------------
                                                Rob Hutchison
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

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 Carreker Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2002 (the "Report"), I, John D. Carreker, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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/JOHN D. CARREKERJohn D. Carreker, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
September 13, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HCW Pension Real EstateFund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the ChiefExecutive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3454

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Kelly Flannery, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 2, 2004 Filed: July 27, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kelly Flannery appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting others in willfully making a threat and maliciously conveying false information, over the telephone, about alleged attempts to blow up a courthouse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 2. At sentencing, the district court determined that Flannery was a career offender, seeU.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, and sentenced him to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. We affirm.-2- Flannery argues for the first time that he was improperly classified as a career offender because the instant offense did not qualify as a “crime of violence.” We find that the court did not plainly err in classifying the instant offense--aiding and abetting others in threatening to blow up the courthouse--as a crime of violence. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (defining crime of violence); United States v. Santos , 131 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1997); cf. United States v. Left Hand Bull , 901 F.2d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1990) (where defendant mailed threatening letter, he committed crime of violence under career-offender provisions, even if he lacked ability to act contemporaneously uponhis threat). Flannery also argues he should have received an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. We reject this contention, because in light of the evidence presented at sentencing, the court did not clearly err in finding that Flannery minimized his role in the offense to the probation officer who interviewed him. See United States v. Alaniz , 148 F.3d 929, 937 (8th Cir. 1998) (denying acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction because entry of guilty plea alone did not entitle defendant to reduction, and he continued to deny his involvement in offense after there was substantial evidence of his participation).
We do not reach Flannery’s remaining arguments regarding his criminal history points and an aggravating-role enhancement, because these issues are moot in light of Flannery’s career-offender status. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust 2007-HE1 Mortgage Pass-Through
  Certificates, Series 2007-HE1, issued pursuant to the Pooling and
  Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and
  Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as
  depositor (the "Depositor"), Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., as the
  servicer ("Saxon" and the "Servicer"), IXIS Real Estate Capital Inc., as
  unaffiliated seller (the "Unaffiliated Seller"), Deutsche Bank National
  Trust Company, as trustee and custodian (in each such capacity,
  respectively, the "Trustee" and the "Custodian") and Wells Fargo Bank,
  National Association, as securities administrator and master servicer (in
  each such capacity, respectively, the "Securities Administrator" and the
  "Master Servicer").

  I, Valerie Kay, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ("Annual Report"), and
    all reports on Form 10-D containing distribution or servicing reports
    (collectively with this Annual Report, the "Reports") required to be
    filed in the periods covered by this Annual Report of the Depositor
    relating to the above-referenced trust and series of certificates;

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Reports, taken as a whole, does not contain
    any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
    fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
    circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
    with respect to the period covered by this Annual Report;

  3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided on Form 10-D for the period covered
    by this Annual Report is included in the Reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the compliance statements required in this
    Annual Report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Reports, the Servicer and the Master Servicer has fulfilled its
    obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria required to be
    included in this Annual Report in accordance with Item 1122 of
    Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
    included as an exhibit to this Annual Report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this Annual Report.  Any material instances of
    non-compliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
    Annual Report.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
    Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Custodian and Wells Fargo Bank,
    N.A. as Master Servicer and as Securities Administrator.

Dated:    April  1, 2008


     Signature
     /s/ Valerie Kay
     Vice President
     (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
* 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

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41420

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

REYNALDO HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-316-ALL

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Reynaldo Hernandez-Hernandez

(Hernandez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez filed a motion for

appointment of appellate counsel in the district court, which was transferred to

this court. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Hernandez’s motion discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,
No. 06-41420

2

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, Hernandez’s motion for appointment of counsel

is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.