alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.6



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. II

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City
Florida Holding Co. II (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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 15, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortPrincipal Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134176 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134176 COA: 276356 Oakland CC: 2006-209325-FH ROBERT CLAUDE FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 20, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
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 Annual Report of Micro Bio-Medical Waste Systems, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.



/s/ Charles Smith
Charles Smith, CEO, CFO

Dated: April 10, 2006

                                       15
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Freedom Financial Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
Jerald L. Fenstermaker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and J. Kevin Maxwell, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Jerald L.
      FenstermakerJerald
      L. FenstermakerPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)May
      12, 2009/s/ J. Kevin MaxwellJ.
      Kevin MaxwellTreasurer
      and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)May 12,
2009
---

Loan Agreement

between

Skyflyer Technology GmbH, Friedrich-List-Allee 10
41844 Wegberg  Wildenrath

- Borrower -

and

DAST GmbH, Friedrich-List-Allee 10 41844 Wegberg -
Wildenrath

[Handwriting: 18000 / 35010]

- Lender -

1. The Lender grants the Borrower a loan in the amount of
Euro 24,000.00

2. The interest rate on the loan commencing with payout
shall be 8% per annum.

3. The loan agreement may be cancelled at any time by
giving three months notice at the end of a quarter.

The loan amount plus interest is payable upon cancellation of
the loan agreement.



Wegberg, December 7, 2007

Skyflyer Technology GmbH
    DAST GmbHFriedrich-List-Allee 10
    Ausbildungsstätte für Schweisstechnik41844 Wegberg-WildenrathTel. 02432/893627
    [illegible]Fax. 02432/899623
    41844 Wegberg-WildenrathTel. 02432  893621Fax. 02432 - 893622[signature]
    [signature](Borrower)
    (Lender)


---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 337 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 337

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 29, 2009.
Whereas, according the most recent annual estimates, State and local child 
        protective services investigated nearly 5,800,000 children in the United 
        States who were reported to be abused or neglected in 2007;
Whereas, according the most recent annual estimates, 1,760 children died in the 
        United States in 2007 from abuse and neglect;
Whereas, according the most recent annual estimates, 794,000 children in the 
        United States were confirmed by protective services as being victims of 
        child maltreatment in 2007;
Whereas 59 percent of the children were classified as victims of child neglect;
Whereas 4.2 percent of the children were classified as victims of psychological 
        maltreatment;
Whereas 7.6 percent of the children were classified as victims of sexual abuse;
Whereas 10.8 percent of the children were classified as victims of physical 
        abuse;
Whereas 1 percent of the children were classified as victims of medical 
        maltreatment;
Whereas 13.1 percent of the children were classified as victims of multiple 
        maltreatments;
Whereas more than three-quarters of the children who died due to child abuse and 
        neglect were younger than four years old;
Whereas these figures represent only reported cases of abuse, many cases are not 
        reported to police or social services;
Whereas child abuse and neglect have great long-term costs for children, 
        families, and society which timely and effective community-based 
        prevention services can reduce, improving the lives and prospects of 
        thousands of children and families; and
Whereas observing National Child Abuse Prevention Month during the month of 
        April provides a special opportunity to raise awareness about the 
        serious threat that child abuse and neglect poses to our Nation's 
        children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the observance of National Child Abuse Prevention Month 
        in order to increase awareness of child maltreatment and encourage 
        individuals and communities to support children and families;
            (2) recognizes and applauds the national and community organizations 
        for their work in promoting awareness about child maltreatment including 
        identifying risk factors and developing prevention strategies; and
            (3) urges families and individuals to report abuse or get help by 
        calling the National Child Abuse Hotline at 1-800-4-A-Child (1-800-422-
        4453).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1886
KAREN DISHMAN POWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT; ALLEN PORTER; GEORGE ROBINSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-27-2) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: October 30, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Dishman Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Roger Thiessen, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Karen Dishman Powell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Powell v. St. Paul Police Dep’t, No. CA-01-27-2 (W.D. Va. July 23, 2002). 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
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00305

- CV

NEAL MAC, LLC, N SYN C

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC,

STEVEN NEAL AND TOBI NEAL APPELLANTS

V.

CHRISTIE PERRY AND S HAWN

DVORACEK APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 96TH DISTRIC T COURT OF TARRANT C OUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “A ppellant s ’ Agreed Motion To Dismiss Appeal

, ”

which is not opposed. It is the court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted;

therefore, we dismis s the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant s , for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 26 , 2013
##### 



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
  (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: March 15, 2006
    /s/ James G. AzleinJames G. Azlein,President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ George J. ZilichGeorge J. Zilich,
Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 14, 2017

NO. 03-16-00310-CV

T. David Young, Appellant

v.

PlainsCapital Bank, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND BOURLAND 

AFFIRMED—OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE 

This is an appeal from the summary judgment signed by the district court on April 21, 2016. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s 

judgment. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
Order entered December 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00671-CR

YADER MANZANAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-82085-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is the December 21, 2022 request of court reporter Joie 

Rivera for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the 

request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed by January 23, 2023.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
#### Arleatha GOODWIN, Appellant, v. Michael BLAIR, Respondent.

No. 61419.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 27, 1992.

Goffstein, Kraus, Sherman, Morganstem & Seigel, Sanford Goffstein, Clayton, for appellant.

Michael Blair, pro se.

SIMON, Judge.

Arleatha Goodwin, appellant, appeals a judgment in favor of Michael Blair, respondent, in an automobile collision case. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that the appellant failed to prove that respondent was driving the automobile that struck appellant because respondent admitted this fact when he failed to respond to appellant’s request for admissions. Appeal dismissed.

It is our duty to determine *sua sponte*whether this court has jurisdiction, even though the issue has not been raised by either party. *Trotter v. Honest John’s,*765 S.W.2d 735 (Mo.App.1989). The timely filing of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. *Id.*at 735.

The trial court rendered judgment on December 3, 1991. Appellant filed motion for new trial on December 10, 1991. The trial court denied the motion on December 31, 1991. Judgment became final at that time. Rule 81.05(a). Appellant had ten days after final judgment to file a notice of appeal. Rule 81.04(a). The ten day period includes intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Rule 44.01(a). Ten days after December 31, 1991 is January 10, 1992, a Friday. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on January 16, 1992. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely.

Further, appellant had six months from the date of final judgment to seek a special order from this court permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal. Rule 81.-07(a). She did not seek such an order.

Appeal dismissed.

CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 4.7

                      SECOND AMENDMENT TO BROOKTROUT, INC.
                  AMENDED AND RESTATED 1992 STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

     This Second Amendment (the "Second Amendment") to the Brooktrout, Inc. (the
"Company") Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Purchase Plan, dated August 17, 1992
(the "Purchase Plan"), was adopted by the Board of Directors (the "Board") of
the Company on March 7, 2000.

WHEREAS, the Board approved and adopted, subject to stockholder approval, the
amendment to increase by seventy-five thousand (75,000) the maximum number of
shares of common stock, $.01 par value per share (the "Stock"), reserved and
available for issuance under the Purchase Plan, from two hundred and twelve
thousand five hundred (212,500) to two hundred and eighty-seven thousand five
hundred (287,500); and

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2000, the stockholders of the Company approved the amendment
at the annual meeting of stockholders;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Purchase Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: The
second sentence of the first paragraph is amended to increase the number of
shares of Stock reserved and available for purchase under the Purchase Plan from
two hundred and twelve thousand five hundred (212,500) to two hundred and
eighty-seven thousand five hundred (287,500).


                                       9
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Dr. Panos Kontzalis, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Anavex Life
      Sciences Corp. for the period ended March 31, 2008 (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 Anavex Life Sciences Corp.                                                                   

Dated: May 15, 2008

/s/ Panos Kontzalis
  Dr. Panos Kontzalis, CEO (Principal
Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Anavex Life
Sciences Corp. and will be retained by Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Summary of Registant's 2nd Half 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.5 
 Summary of Registrant’s 2nd Half 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan

 The 2nd
Half 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan provides certain target levels for second half 2006 revenue, EBITDA (excluding the effects of stock compensation charges) and cash flow which, if reached, would result in the payment of cash bonus awards
(included in EBIDTA above) of approximately $900,000. The at risk cash bonus awards would range from 20% to 60% of each participant’s base salary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6152

FREDRICK STINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL ALLEN, Circuit Court Judge; LARRY STEVEN HOGAN, 

Deputy Commonwealth Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01364-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fredrick Stinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fredrick Stinson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil 

rights action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Because Stinson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis 

for the district court’s disposition, Stinson has forfeited

appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. 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
#### Michael C. WALTHER, Appellant, v. BOATMEN’S NATIONAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS, Respondent.

No. 66349.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 12, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied July 25, 1995.

*629Herbert K. Hoffman, Clayton, for appellant.

David Wells, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff brought an action alleging defendant wrongfully honored a cashier’s cheek. The trial court sustained defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appeals. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 21.1



|SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT                   |  | JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
|-------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                                            
|Nuance Communications International, Inc.    |  | Delaware                     
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Limited                |  | United Kingdom               
|                                            
|Nuance SARL                                  |  | France                       
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Montreal Limited       |  | Canada                       
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Ottawa Limited         |  | Canada                       
|                                            
|1448451 Ontario Inc.                         |  | Canada                       
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Hong Kong Limited      |  | Hong Kong                    
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Singapore Pte. Limited |  | Singapore                    
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Ltda                   |  | Brazil                       
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Spain S.L.             |  | Spain                        
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Gmbh                   |  | Germany                      
|                                            
|Nuance Communications KK                     |  | Japan                        
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Korea Inc.             |  | Korea                        
|                                            
|Nuance Communications Italy SRL              |  | Italy