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



Exhibit 99.2

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 Stratasys, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas W.
Stenoien, Chief Financial 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 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.

| |  |     |  |                        |  |                                                          
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas W. Stenoien
| |  |     |  |                       
| |  |     |  |                        |  | Thomas W. Stenoien
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 751 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 751

To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to increase to 5 
years the period during which former Members of Congress may not engage 
                    in certain lobbying activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 1995

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 207 of title 18, United States Code, to increase to 5 
years the period during which former Members of Congress may not engage 
                    in certain lobbying activities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
207(e)(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
``1 year'' and inserting ``5 years''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Levcor International,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edward F. Cooke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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:  May 12, 2006


By: /s/ EDWARD F. COOKE
    ---------------------------------
    Edward F. Cooke
    Chief Financial Officer


                                    Page 49
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00106-CV

Barry BROOKS, Heston C. King, Stefen Douglas Brooks, Johanna Barton, 

and Jesse Rodriguez Benavides,

Appellants

v.

EXCELLENCE MORTGAGE, LTD.,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-01173

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE,1 JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order 

granting Excellence Mortgage, Ltd.’s traditional motion for summary judgment on Appellants’ 

breach of contract claims is AFFIRMED. 

The portion of the trial court’s order disposing of Appellants’ antitrust and interference 

with prospective business relations claims is REVERSED. 

We REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. 

We tax costs of this appeal against the party that incurred them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

SIGNED April 1, 2015.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

1 Chief Justice Catherine M. Stone, retired, not participating.
191 La. 554

#### Mrs. Ulysse DESHOTELS, Widow, et al., v. Emile LUDEAU et al.

No. 34873.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1939.

Philo Coco, of Marksville, and Chester Coco, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, and Atlee P. Steckler and Roland B. Reed, both of Ville Platte, for appellees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The issue in this case is the same as in the case of Mrs. Emma Rosa Tate Fontenot v. Emile Ludeau et al., La.Sup., 186 So. 21. For the reasons given in the opinion rendered in that case, the judgment appealed from in this case is annulled, and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion referred to. The defendants are to pay the costs of this appeal. The liability for all other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0378

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA WILLIAM MEYERS STARKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 4, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 24 2024

09/24/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0378
Trism Secured Transportation, Inc.               Delaware

  Tri-State Motor Transit Co.                    Delaware
   Aero Body and Truck Equipment Company, Inc.,
   Tri-State Transportation Service, Inc.        Missouri

  Diablo Systems Incorporated
   d/b/a/ Diablo Transportation, Inc.          California

  Emerald Leasing, Inc.                            Nevada

  McGil Special Services, Inc.                   Delaware

  Trism Eastern, Inc.
   d/b/a/ C.I. Whitten Transfer                  Delaware

Trism Heavy Haul, Inc.                           Delaware

  Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc.                Georgia
   Trism Special Services, Inc.                   Georgia
   AAA Truck Lease & Sales, Inc.                  Georgia

  E.L. Powell & Sons Trucking Co., Inc.          Oklahoma

Trism Transport Services, Inc.                       Utah

   EFB, Inc.                                     Delaware

TRISM Logistics, Inc.                          New Jersey

Trism Equipment, Inc.                            Delaware

TRISM Maintenance Services, Inc.                 Delaware

Transportation Recovery Systems, Inc.            Delaware
<PAGE>
18399.

#### Barden, Trustee, *v.*Wender Realty Company.

Submitted November 10, 1953

Decided November 12, 1953

Rehearing denied November 25, 1953.

*Mitchell*cfc *Mitchell,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. S. Grove,*contra.

Almand, Justice.

It not appearing that there was any service, acknowledgment of service, or waiver of service of the bill of exceptions after its certification by the trial judge, as required by Code § 6-911, but only that service was acknowledged of a copy of the bill of exceptions and of a notice that it would be presented to the judge on a named future date, in conformity with the act of 1946 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 726-735; Code, Ann. Supp., § 6-908.1), requiring notice of intention to present to the judge for approval a bill of exceptions, this court is without jurisdiction of the writ of error, and it must be dismissed. *Mauldin*v. *Mauldin,*203 *Ga.*123 (45 S. E. 2d 818); *Henry*v. *Gillis,*204 *Ga.*397 (50 S. E. 2d 73).

*Writ of enor dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, C. J., not participating.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                          1,119,000
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       168,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,485,000
<PP&E>                         13,885,000
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,737,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 16,381,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,695,000
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                         1,000
<COMMON>                            3,000
<OTHER-SE>                      3,857,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   16,381,000
<SALES>                         7,223,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                8,774,000
<CGS>                             508,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  11,325,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                522,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (3,029,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (340,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (3,369,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (3,369,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (1.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ESTEB AN DONATO M ALDONADO DIAZ, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 09-72102 Age n c y No. A072-140-781 M EM OR ANDUM *

On Pe t ition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of The B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a rc h 12, 2014 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WA L L A CE an d BER ZON, C irc uit Judge s; a nd Z OUHAR Y, Distric t Judge
. ** 

# FIL E D
APR 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tio n an d i s n ot pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T h e Honora

b le Ja c k Zouha

ry , Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for t h e Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.Pe titione r Este b a n D ona to M a ldona do Dia z (“ Dia z ” ), a n a tive of G u at em a la ,

pe titions for rev i e w of a n orde r from t

he B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a

p plic a tion for a sy l um , withholding of re m o va l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Am ic us c ounse l a rgu es the B IA c om m itte d a due proc e s s viola tion by
c onc luding Dia z h ad a

ba ndone d a politic a l opposition c la im re la t e d to a forc e d
m e e ting h e ld by gue rrilla s w ith townspe ople a nd by fa iling to d ev elop the re c ord
a de qua te ly
. Howe ve r, Dia z fa ils t o show he suffe re d pr ej u d ic e a s a re sult of a ny
a lle ge d due proc e ss viola t ion. Se e C

olme nar v . I

NS , 2 10 F.3d 967, 971 (9th C ir. 2000); se e a lso C

ruz Re ndon v . Holde r , 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th C ir. 2010). This is
so be c a use the ge ne ra liz e d thre a ts t o the townspe o ple a re pa te ntly insuffic ie nt to
wa rra n t re lie f. Se e Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2000). Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t D ia z did not e sta blish pa st per s ecu t ion on a c c o unt of his politic a l opinion or a we l l-founde d fe a r of future pe rse c ution. Se e Oc hav e v . IN S , 254 F.3d 8 59, 865 (9th C ir. 2001); Sangha v . IN S , 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th C ir. 1997). The bus robbe rie s he e ndure d we re ra ndom
a c ts of viole nc e a nd fe a

r of viole nc e is a n insuffic ie n t ba sis for gra nting a sy lum
. Se e C hav e z v . IN S , 723 F.2d 1431, 1434 (9th C ir. 1984). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

- 2-
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 Annual Report of NMS Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert P. Schechter, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ROBERT P. SCHECHTERRobert P. Schechter
Chief Executive Officer
March 1, 2004 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by
implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 10.7****2006 Performance Incentive Programs**Employees of the Company are eligible to receive cash incentives based on the 2006 year-end resultsof RTW, Inc. and its Subsidiaries. All employees of the Company are eligible to participate inthis program. Under the program, a portion of plan pre-tax earnings and pre-tax earnings in excessof planned results, excluding investment income, are contributed to a general pool and distributedin 2007. Incentive amounts will be distributed as a percentage (%) of salary and on adiscretionary basis to employees. Any incentive program payment will be made annually aftercompleting the year-end audit.Executive officers, additionally, earn stock options based upon exceeding the Company’s pre-tax,pre-cash incentive, pre-investment income earnings plan for 2006 and are eligible for an additionaldiscretionary bonus. Executive officers are eligible for a fixed number of options, pro-rated on asliding scale, in excess of the profit plan, up to a maximum level. Any stock option grant will bemade annually after completing the 2006 year-end audit.
18408.

#### Bankers Life *&*Casualty Co. *v.*Cravey, Comptroller-General.

Argued November 10, 1953

Decided November 12, 1953.

*Alex McLennan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, Lamar Sizemore, Assistant Attorney-General, B. D. Murphy,*contra.

Per Ctjriam.

An action brought under the Declaratory Judgments Act (Ga. L. 1945, p. 137), not being an equitable proceeding per se, must involve some phase of those cases listed in Code (Ann.) § 2-3704 in order to come within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on exceptions to the rulings of the lower court. The instant case, not involving a construction of the Constitution, but merely involving objections to its application, and not being in any manner an equity case, must be transferred to the Court of Appeals. Code (Ann.) §§ 2-3704, 2-3708; *Felton*v. *Chandler,*201 *Ga.*347 (39 S. E. 2d 654); *Maynard*v. *Thrasher,*203 *Ga.*280 (46 S. E. 2d 348).

*Transferred to the Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duck-worth, C. J., not participating.*
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,240

EX PARTE KEVIN DEWAYNE FLOWERS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 78743-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

assault and sentenced to thirty (30) years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Flowers v. State, No. 09-02-348-CR, (Tex. App. – Beaumont, 2004, no pet.) (not

designated for publication). 

Applicant alleges inter alia that the State used a conviction with a probated sentence to

enhance punishment to the habitual offender punishment range under TEX. PEN.CODE, § 12.42 (d).

The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief
2

be granted. We agree. The record reflects that the State used a conviction with a probated sentence

to enhance punishment to the habitual offender punishment range under TEX. PEN. CODE, § 12.42

(d). Applicant did not have another prior felony conviction which the State could have used to

properly enhance punishment when he committed the challenged offense. Applicant is entitled to

a new punishment trial. 

Relief is granted in part. The judgment in Cause No. 78743-A in the Criminal District Court

of Jefferson County is set aside and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Jefferson

County so that a new punishment trial can be conducted. 

All other relief is denied. 

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: October 21, 2009

Do Not Publish.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2327

W&M PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA,

d/b/a Merrifield Village Apartment Company,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CAROLYN A. MILLIGAN; JOHNNY MILLIGAN,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-04-981-1)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 19, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carolyn A. Milligan, Johnny Milligan, Appellants Pro Se. Andrew

Greenleaf Lawrence, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Johnny L. Milligan and Carolyn A. Milligan seek to appeal

the district court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion and

remanding this action to state court because the notice of removal

was not timely filed and for lack of federal jurisdiction. The

district court’s remand order is not reviewable. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1447(d) (2000). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 12 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Dou gl as Earl Lei te r, al so kn own as Wil li am Jac ks on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.
Ch ris to ph er Ni ck ren z, W ard en , FPC - Du lu th

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Sep te m

be r 7, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Dou gl as Earl Leit er, a/ k/ a W il li am Ja ck so n, ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di sm is sa l of

an act io n whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t co ns tru ed as a 28 U.S.C. § 22 41 pe ti ti on , in whi ch 1

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Bec ky R.Leit er ch al le ng eda pr is on di sc ip li na ry pro ceed in g t ha t re su lt edin hi s l os s o f go od

ti m e cred it s. Alt ho ug h we reco gn iz e th at Leit er was no t ex cl us iv el y se ek in g
res to rat io n of h i s go od -ti m e cred it s, we co nc lu de th at th e m at te r was pr op erl y
co ns tru ed as a se ct io n 22 41 pe ti ti on

. Cf. Po rtl ey -El v. Bri ll , 28 8 F.3 d 10 63 , 10 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (b ecau se go od -ti m e cred it s affe ct le ng th of in m at e’s co nf in em en t, ha be as
co rp us is ex cl us iv e fed eral rem e d y w h e n pr is on er se ek s res to rat io n of go od -ti m e cred it s t ak en away

by pris on di sc ip li na ry

pro ceed in g)

.

Hav in g c aref

ul ly revi ewed th e rec or d, ho wev er, w e co nc lu de th e cas e is no w
m oo t: Leit er was rel eas edfro m pri so n wh il e th is ap pe al was p en di ng , ret ur n o f th e go od -ti m e cred it s wou ld ha ve no effe ct on hi s cu rren t te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d at th is ti m e we se e no co ll at eral co ns eq ue nc es fro m th e ch al le nge d di sc ip li na ry act io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 52 9 U.S. 53 , 54 -5 9 (20 00 ) (s up erv is ed rel eas e be gi ns whe n pri so ne r is rel eas ed fro m pr is on ; ex ces s pr is on ti m e se rv ed can no t offs et te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e); cf. Leo na rd v. N i x , 55 F.3 d 37 0, 37 2- 73 (8 th Ci r.19 95 ) (rel eas e of pr is on er (s ub se qu en tl y rei nc arce rat ed ) di d no t m oo t ha be as pe ti ti on whe re ch al le ng eddi sc ip li na ry

act io n h adco ll at eral co ns eq ue nc es ).

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t hi s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Tho rs on , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta

. -2

-
EXHIBIT 11.1

Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc.
Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE

                                                                
                                            Year ended
                                           September 30,        
                              -----------------------------------
                                    1996                  1995  
                              -------------          ------------
<S>                           <C>                    <C>
Net loss attributable
to common shareholders         $(1,448,171)          $  (883,681)
                               ===========           ===========
Weighted average 
shares outstanding               1,979,548             1,979,548 

Common stock and 
equivalents (see Note A)           191,240               372,483 

Common stock issued in 
connection with initial 
public offering                    208,333                 -    
                               -----------           -----------
Shares used in 
computing net loss 
per common share                 2,379,121             2,352,031 
                               ===========           ===========
Net loss per 
common share                        $(.61)                $(.38)
                               ===========           ===========

</TABLE>

Note A -    Represent common shares issued or issuable in
connection with stock options and warrants granted within one
year of the initial filing of a registration statement in
connection with the initial public offering (IPO) at prices below
the offering price (net of shares repurchased under the treasury
stock method).


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Fully diluted earnings per share differs from primary earnings
per share by less than 3%.