alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 7, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory W. Freiberg
|                  |  |     |  | Gregory W. Freiberg    
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



43
[665 NE2d 192, 642 NYS2d 622]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rahson Johnson, Appellant.

Argued February 8, 1996;

decided March 26, 1996

*1007APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Earle Giovanniello,*Brooklyn, for appellant.

*Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney*of Kings County, Brooklyn *(Diane R. Eisner*and *Roseann B. MacKechnie*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was tried jointly before a jury with two codefendants, and convicted of robbery in the first degree and three counts of attempted robbery in the first degree. On the second day of deliberations, after being informed that one or more jurors might be encountering personal problems, the court asked the jurors to communicate, in writing, the nature of any problem they might be experiencing. The court received a note from one juror expressing concern for the safety of her family. The courtroom was cleared and the juror questioned in the presence of the court and both counsel.

The juror stated that she felt unable to continue deliberating because she recognized a person in the courtroom and feared reprisals if a verdict unfavorable to the defendants was reached. The juror advised the court that she did not feel she was in danger until after the first day of deliberations had ended. Defendant moved for a mistrial.

After determining from the jury and the foreperson that the jury had reached a verdict on some counts of the indictment at the end of the first day’s deliberations, the court took a partial verdict. The jury found the defendant guilty of one count of robbery in the first degree and guilty of three counts of attempted robbery in the first degree. It did not reach a verdict on one count of robbery in the first degree. The court then discharged the jury. Defendant’s motion for a mistrial was denied. Defendant appealed his convictions and the Appellate Division affirmed.

A juror may be discharged even after jury deliberations have begun if a court finds from facts unknown during the jury selection process that a juror is grossly unqualified (CPL 270.35). "In concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, the *1008court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent her from rendering an impartial verdict” *(People v*Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299).

The juror at issue here stated that she did not feel unable to continue deliberating until after the jury had been discharged on the first day. Consequently, the juror was not grossly unqualified to participate in the first day’s jury deliberations and the partial verdict was reached by a qualified and competent jury. Having determined that the jury would be unable to reach a verdict on all of the counts, the trial court properly terminated the deliberations and ordered the jury to render a partial verdict (CPL 310.70 [1] [a]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469) 

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 628.208.6434 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com 

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com 

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496) 

David J. Richardson (SBN 168592) 

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 

Telephone: 310.820.8800 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com 

Email: drichardson@bakerlaw.com 

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com 

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

□ Affects PG&E Corporation 

□ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

■ Affects both Debtors 

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF 

MOTION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 

501 AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 3003(c) 

FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER 

EXTENDING THE BAR DATE 

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4691 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 17:38:04 Page 1 of

3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2 

TO THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 

COURT JUDGE, THE DEBTORS, AND ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”), 

hereby withdraws its Motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 

105(a) and 501 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3003(c) for Entry of an Order Extending the Bar Date, filed 

on October 18, 2019 [Dkt. 4292] (the “Motion”), on the grounds that the relief requested in the 

Motion has been addressed by this Court’s entry of its Order Extending Bar Date for Fire Claimants 

and Appointing Claims Representative [Dkt. 4672]. 

Dated: November 12, 2019 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

By: /s/ David J. Richardson David J. Richardson 

Counsel for The Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4691 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 17:38:04 Page 2 of

3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4691 Filed: 11/12/19 Entered: 11/12/19 17:38:04 Page 3 of

3
October 31, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4530 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 10:18:34 Page 1 of

3
US_ACTIVE-149855704.1

EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF CLAIM 

For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, 

WHITEBOX ASYMMETRIC PARTNERS, LP (“Seller”) does hereby unconditionally and irrevocably sell, transfer 

and assign unto MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS L.P. (“Buyer”) all rights, title and interest in and to the claims of 

Seller referenced as proofs of claim 2945 and 2940 (the “Claim”) against Pacific Gas and Electric Company and 

its affiliated debtors and debtors in possession (the “Debtor”) whose Chapter 11 bankruptcy case is pending in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (the “Bankruptcy Court”) (or any other 

court with jurisdiction over the bankruptcy proceedings) as Case No. 19-30088. 

Seller hereby waives any objection to the transfer of the Claim assigned herein (the “Transferred Claim”) 

to Buyer on the books and records of the Debtor and the Bankruptcy Court, and hereby waives to the fullest 

extent permitted by law any notice or right to a hearing as may be imposed by Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure, the Bankruptcy Code, applicable local bankruptcy rules or applicable law. Seller 

acknowledges and understands, and hereby stipulates, that an order of the Bankruptcy Court may be entered 

without further notice to Seller transferring to Buyer the Transferred Claim and recognizing the Buyer as the sole 

owner and holder of the Transferred Claim. Seller further directs the Debtor, the Bankruptcy Court and all other 

interested parties that all further notices relating to the Transferred Claim, and all payments or distributions of 

money or property in respect of the Transferred Claim, shall be delivered or made to the Buyer. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Transfer of Claim by its duly authorized 

representative dated the _____ day of October, 2019. 

SELLER: 

WHITEBOX ASYMMETRIC PARTNERS, LP

Name:

Title:

BUYER: 

MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS L.P.

By: Midtown Acquisitions GP LLC

Name:

Title:

DocuSign Envelope ID: EFC030CC-D53B-4695-A1E6-72430F94D70D

Luke Harris

General Counsel

Whitebox Advisors LLC

30th

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4530 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 10:18:34 Page 2 of

3
30th

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4530 Filed: 10/31/19 Entered: 10/31/19 10:18:34 Page 3 of

3
Bar Docket No. 14382

#### In The Matter of Matthew L. Cochran, *Respondent.*

62 P.3d 246

Dated this 29th day of January, 2003.

In a letter dated January 28, 2003, to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, respondent, Matthew L. Cochran, of Olathe, an attorney admitted to the practice of law in tire State of Kansas, voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law in Kansas, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 217 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 275).

At the time respondent surrendered his license, the Disciplinary Administrator s office had been informed that the respondent had been charged in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, with two felony counts of selling, delivering, or distributing a quantity of methamphetamine; one felony count of a threat to commit violence with intent to terrorize another; and one felony count of possessing a commercial explosive.

This court, having examined the files of the office of the Disciplinaxy Administrator, finds that the surrender of the respondent’s license should be accepted and that the respondent should be disbarred.

It Is Therefore Ordered that Matthew L. Cochran be and is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas and his license and-privilege to practice law are hereby revoked.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk of the Appellate Courts strike the name of Matthew L. Cochran from the roll of attorneys licensed to practice law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order shall be published in the Kansas Reports, that the costs herein shall be assessed to the respondent, and that the respondent forthwith shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2002 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 279).
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                          
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|Date: November 1, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey H. Von Deylen
|                       |  |     |  | Jeffrey H. Von Deylen    
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRIANANTO BUDIONO,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72788

Agency No. A095

- 629

- 888

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016 **

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Triananto Budiono, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA ” ) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen

. Najmabadi v. Holder

,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 20 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 72788

597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) . We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Budiono’s motion to reopen

as untimely where the motion was filed more than six years after the BIA’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Budiono failed to provide sufficient

evidence of materially changed country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for a

regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, s ee 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (3)(ii) ; see also Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th

Cir. 2008) ( the BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish materially

changed country conditions )

.

W e reject Budiono’s contention that the BIA failed to consider arguments or

record evidence, or otherwise erred in analyzing his claim. S ee Najmabadi , 597

F.3d at 990

- 91 (the court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of discretion unless it

acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13849]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending May 29, 
2010

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0141.
    Date Filed: May 25, 2010.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 634--Resolution 010x, TC3 Special Passenger 
Amending Resolution From Brunei Darussalam to South East Asia (Memo 
1386), Intended effective date: 1 June 2010.

Renee V. Wright,
 Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-13849 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
#### John Wood, Respondent, v. Francis L. Ludlow, Appellant.

Action No. 2.

Same judgment.
EX-10.4






EXHIBIT 10.4




AMENDMENT #4

TO TRANSITION SERVICES AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT #4 TO THE TRANSITION SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is effective as of the
second date of signature below (the “Amendment #4 Effective Date”), by and among Travelport Inc.
(“Travelport”) and Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. (“Orbitz”).




     WHEREAS, Travelport and Orbitz entered into a Transition Services Agreement dated as of July
25, 2007 (the “TSA”) under which each Party and their Subsidiaries agreed to provide certain
Services to the other Party; and



     WHEREAS, Travelport and Orbitz have amended the TSA pursuant to prior amendments and now
desire to amend the TSA as set forth below.



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Parties,
intending to be legally bound, hereby agree that the following modifications are made to the TSA:




	1.	 	The term with respect to each Service for maintenance and support of the Oracle application
that is described in Section 6 (Applications Support) of Exhibit A-6 is hereby extended until
September 30, 2009. The terms applicable to the KBACE Statement of Work set forth in
Amendment #3 are similarly extended.






	2.	 	Effective on June 1, 2009, in lieu of the fixed charge of $47,675 per month specified in
Exhibit A-6 the TSA, the charge for the extended Services set forth in Section 1 above shall
be $1,564 per day.






	3.	 	Effective on January 1, 2009, Exhibit A-5 shall be deleted and replaced with Attachment A
hereto.






	4.	 	Orbitz may terminate either Service set forth in Sections 1 and 3 above at any time without
penalty by providing advance written notice to Travelport no less than seven days prior to the
effective termination date specified in the notice. The termination notice shall be provided
in accordance with Section 10.6 (Notices) of the TSA, with an additional copy provided via
e-mail to Ed Siragusa of Travelport at ___. Following such a termination
notice, Orbitz shall pay the applicable charge up to and including the effective termination
date, but not thereafter.






	5.	 	Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the TSA, the Separation Agreement, and the schedules and exhibits thereto.






	6.	 	Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the TSA shall
continue in full force and effect.






	7.	 	This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment #4 to the Transition Services
Agreement to be effective as of the Amendment #4 Effective Date.



	 	 	 
	Travelport Inc.	 	Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.
	 
	 	 
	By: /s/ Vincent Ventura

	 	By: /s/ Marsha Williams
	 

	 	 
	Name: Vincent Ventura

	 	Name: Marsha Williams
	Title: SVP Tax

	 	Title: SVP & CFO
	Date: 6/24/09

	 	Date: June 29, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5702 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5702

 To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 
      of Ebenezer D. Bassett, the first African-American diplomat.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2014

 Ms. DeLauro introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 
      of Ebenezer D. Bassett, the first African-American diplomat.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ambassador Ebenezer D. Bassett 
Commemorative Stamp Act''.

SEC. 2. EBENEZER D. BASSETT COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP.

    (a) Issuance.--The Postmaster General shall issue a commemorative 
postage stamp in honor of Ebenezer D. Bassett.
    (b) Requirements.--Such stamp shall--
            (1) be issued in the denomination used for first class mail 
        up to one ounce in weight;
            (2) bear such designs as the Postmaster General shall 
        determine; and
            (3) be placed on sale as soon as practicable after the date 
        of the enactment of this section and shall be sold for such 
        period thereafter as the Postmaster General shall determine.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 758]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated June 17, 2002, which denied the petition, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*685Pursuant to CPLR 7511 (a), an application to vacate an arbitrator’s award must be made “by a party within ninety days after [its] delivery to [that party].” Here, the documentary evidence submitted in support of the petitioner’s application established that the petitioner received the arbitrator’s decision no later than November 9, 2001. Since this proceeding was commenced more than 90 days thereafter, the Supreme Court properly dismissed it as untimely *(see Werner Enters. Co. v New York City Law Dept.,*281 AD2d 253 [2001]; *Matter of National School Bus Serv. [Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.],*267 AD2d 995 [1999]; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Elias,*221 AD2d 547 [1995]; *Lopez v Coughlin,*220 AD2d 349 [1995]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the fact that the arbitrator’s decision was served on the petitioner by mail did not extend its time to commence this proceeding by five days *(see Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health,*58 NY2d 80 [1983]; *Matter of ATM One v Landaverde,*307 AD2d 922 [2003]), as the provision of CPLR 2103 extending time for service made by mail “is expressly restricted to service ‘in a pending action’ ” *(Matter of Fiedelman v New York State Dept. of Health,*58 NY2d 80, 82 [1983]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
No. 1331, Misc.

*Edward W. Rothe*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for the United States.

#### Davis *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.