alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.****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 QuarterlyReport of Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick M. Murphy, Chief FinancialOfficer 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; 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/ PATRICK M. MURPHY                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |        |
| **Patrick M. Murphy****Senior Vice President,****Chief Financial Officer,****Secretary andTreasurer****(Principal Financial and Accounting****Officer)****November 13, 2002**     |
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                   ------------


                                WRITTEN STATEMENT

In  connection  with  the amended Annual Report of Electric FuelCorporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-K/A  for the year ended December 31, 2001filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, AvihaiShen, Vice President
-  Finance  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the Company,pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  hereby  certify  that  to my knowledge, the Reportfully complies with the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934,
and  the  information  contained  in  the Report fairlypresents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  ofoperations of the Company.

                         By:             /S/ AVIHAI SHEN
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                    Avihai Shen, Vice President - Finance
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)

Date:  May 8, 2003


<PAGE>
#### JACKSON v. MUSE.

No. 2022.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1939.

Reid & Reid, of Hammond, for appellant.

F. Nicholls Pugh, of Springville,' for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

The plaintiff alleges that he leased to the defendant a certain piece of real estate in the town of Denham Springs for a period of one year, beginning on the 30th day of January, 1939, and expiring on the 30th day of January, 1940; said lease being for a weekly rental of $7, payable every two weeks, all in accordance with the lease which is annexed to and made part of the petition. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to pay the rent which fell due on April 26, 1939, and plaintiff thereupon terminated the lease and gave the defendant notice to vacate the premises in accordance with law.

The prayer is for an annulment of the lease, for judgment against the defendant for the amount due during the time defendant has possession of the premises, and for a rule to issue against the defendant to show cause why he should not surrender possession of the premises to plaintiff immediately. ■ The rule issued and was made returnable on May 24, 1939.

On the return date of the rule, the defendant filed an exception of no cause or right of action, which exception was sustained and the suit dismissed. Plaintiff has appealed.

No written reasons were given by the trial judge for sustaining the exception but we are informed in the brief of appellant’s counsel that the reason the exception of no cause or right of action was sustained was because the plaintiff failed to set out a title in himself to the property from which he is attempting to eject the defendant. We find no brief in the record for appel-lee.

As the allegations of fact in the petition must be taken as true for the purpose of the exception, the plaintiff and the defendant sustained the relation of lessor and lessee toward each other. A lessee cannot dispute the title of the lessor to the property which he holds as lessee, nor can he raise the question of title so long as he possesses the property as lessee. Federal Land Bank of N. O. v. Spencer, La.App., 160 So. 175; Harvin v. Blackman et al., 112 La. 24, 36 So. 213, and State ex rel. Jackson v. Mills, 2 La.App. 425.

In the very lease which defendant signed, and which is the basis of the suit, the plaintiff is stated to be the owner of the property, and the defendant thereby recognized the ownership of the property in plaintiff. So that the defendant has recognized plaintiff’s ownership of the property in two ways: First, by leasing it from plaintiff as owner, and second, by signing a lease which itself states that plaintiff is the owner of the property.

*163We find no merit whatever m the exception, and for the reasons stated, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and the same is hereby annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that the exception of no cause or right of action be overruled and the case remanded to be proceeded with according to law; defendant and appellee to pay the cost of the appeal, and all other cost to await the final termination of the cause.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6364 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6364

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2022

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Improvement 
Act to extend the exception to the closure of certain roads within the 
     Recreation Area for local businesses, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF CERTAIN ROADS WITHIN THE DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL 
              RECREATION AREA.

    Section 4(b) of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 
Improvement Act (Public Law 109-156; 119 Stat. 2948) is amended in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``Until'' and all that 
follows through ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``Until September 30, 
2026, subsection (a)''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Frederick R. Giebelhausen and Others, Respondents, v. A. Ewing Sumner and Horton Sumner, Appellants, Impleaded with Florence G. Felton and Madeline Mende.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 2 4 , 20 12

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 11

- 00 598

- CR

____________

BICHNGA NGUYEN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Cause No. 5587

Appealed from City of Houston Municipal Court No. 2

Trial Court Cause number 2010 TR 0924478



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was convicted of speeding and assessed a fine of $ 65 .00 in the City of

Houston Municipal Court. She appealed the conviction on the record to the Co unty

Criminal Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas. That court affirmed the conviction

and appella nt perfected an appeal to this c ourt. We dismiss the appeal.

A defendant may appe al to a court of appeals if s he is convicted in a municipal court

of record and that conviction is affirmed by the county court. See Tex. Gov’ t Code §

30.00027(a). However, such an appeal is permitted only if “the fine assessed against the2

defendant exce eds $100.” Id. Because the fine in this case does not exceed $100, we

have no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Jamison and McCally

.

Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 31.1




CERTIFICATION




I, William Threadgill, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of STRATSSM Trust For Allstate Corporation Securities, Series 2006-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;




4.           Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; 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 for asset-backed securities required to be included in this 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 report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee.




Dated: March 30, 2012
By:
/s/ William ThreadgillWilliam ThreadgillPresident(senior officer of depositor in charge of securitization)
Exhibit (32)

SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the Report), I, Michael H. Thaman, 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 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; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
          the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Michael H. ThamanChief Financial Officer

November 7, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Applera Corporation (the Company) on Form
    10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
    and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tony
    L. White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
    U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
    Act of 2002, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Tony L. White
Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 9, 2004

---
SCWC-29440

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

KAUAI SPRINGS, INC., 

Petitioner/Appellant-Appellee,

vs.

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF KAUA#I, 

Respondent/Appellee-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 29440; CIV. NO. 07-1-0042)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Pollack, J.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court,

filed on February 28, 2014, is corrected as follows:

1. On page 98, line 10:

Delete the phrase “While ‘encouraging’ review,” and

capitalize the letter “t” in the word “the.”

2. On page 98, footnote 44, line 2:

Insert the phrase “as set forth in this opinion”

after the word “Commission.” 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-29440

07-MAR-2014

08:02 AM
The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these

changes.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 7, 2014.

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Associate Justice

-2-
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

FOR PUBLICATION

In re M. R. SIMONETTA, Minor. February 24, 2022

No. 357909

St. Clair Circuit Court

Family Division

LC No. 19-000333-NA

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and BORRELLO and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring).

I concur entirely with the majority’s reasoning and conclusion that a fetus is not a “child” 

under the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 et seq., or under the Probate Code, MCL 710.21 et 

seq. Therefore, as the majority concludes, it is definitionally impossible to commit abuse of a fetus 

under MCL 722.638(1), and it is, in turn, definitionally impossible to subject a fetus to “aggravated 

circumstances” under MCL 712A.19a(2). Because that conclusion is dispositive, I concur with 

the result reached by the majority for that reason alone, and I would not consider or express any 

opinion whether the evidence would otherwise support a finding of “severe physical abuse.”

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
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 quarterly report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, 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,
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/ Gregory L. Paige   
|Gregory L. Paige       
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|Dated: May 14, 2009    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management
Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### David R. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. Douglas WEBER, Warden, S.D. State Penitentiary; Thomas Gillcrest, Psychologist, S.D.S.P.; Gary Taylor, Unit Manager, S.D.S.P.; Jeff Bloomberg, S.D.S.P., Secretary of D.O.C., Appellees.

No. 03-1728.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.

Decided Aug. 6, 2003.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

*606PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate David R. Bradley appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and determining that the dismissal was a “third strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Upon review, we are unable to find two previous dismissals that qualify as “strikes,” and we therefore grant Bradley leave to appeal in forma pauperis. We conclude, however, that dismissal of the action was proper, because Bradley’s amended complaint failed to state a claim. *See Moore v. Sims,*200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the dismissal, *see*8th Cir. R. 47A(a), and we vacate the portion of the district court’s order which states that the dismissal constituted a third “strike.”

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
18275.

#### Tift *et al. v.*Farmers Bank of Tifton.

Submitted July 13, 1953

Decided September 14, 1953.

*B. D. Smith, Bob Bernhardt,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Gibson & DeLoache, Bobert B. Forrester,*contra.

Candler, Justice.

This litigation involves the right to use an alley without interference, and the exception is to a judgment denying an interlocutory injunction. The grant or denial of such an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, according to the circumstances of each case (Code § 55-108); and, where the evidence is conflicting, his decision will not be controlled by this court unless it is apparent that he has abused the discretion which the law gives him. *Deriso*v. *Castleberry,*202 *Ga.*174 (42 S. E. 2d 356). In the case at bar the evidence is in conflict and no abuse of discretion appears. Hence the record fails to show error. See *Fletcher*v. *Clements,*147 *Ga.*754 (95 S. E. 285); *Vickers*v. *City of Gainesville,*177 *Ga.*793 (171 S. E. 299); *Jones*v. *Lanier Development Co.,*188 *Ga.*141, 145 (2 S. E. 2d 923).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, PJ., not participating.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2009 

0128 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

137134 

RAYMOND SCHORNAK, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137134 

 COA: 277024 

WCAC: 05-000316 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 15, 2008 

judgment 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.
No. 12,878.

#### Lee R. Hall et als. vs. Succession of John P. Richardson.

ON APPEAL from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. *Righlor, J.*

*Andrew II. Wilson*for Plaintiff and Appellees.

*H. 71. Price*and *Thos. J. Semmes*for Defendant, Appellant.

Argued and submitted December 9, 1898.

Opinion handed down January 26, 1899.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

The parties to this suit having agreed upon a compromise, and for that purpose to have a judgment embodying the compromise entered in the District Court, and considering the stipulation entered into between counsel, now on file:

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and that the cause be remanded to that court for further proceedings pursuant to the-agreement of compromise.
CLIFTON CREWS HOYT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS NO.03-14-00454-CR INTHE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
STATE'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES the State ofTexas, Appellee in the above entitled and numbered
cause and files this Motion for Extension ofTime to File Appellee's Brief, and in support thereofwould showthe Courtthe following: I. Appellant was found guilty of Driving While Intoxicated, 3rd or more, a Third Degree felony enhanced to a Second Degree felony, and the Judge assessed punishment at 12 years confinement in the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice on June 11, 2014. Appellant filed a Notice ofAppeal on July 22, 2014. Appellant's briefwas filed
on November20,2014. The State's brief is currently due on December22,2014. II. The State has previously requested an extension in this case which was granted bythe Court on December 19, 2014. III. The State requests this extension of time due to the following: Counsel for the State was out ofthe office fortwo weeks from December 20, 2012 to January4,2015for vacation and holiday time. Additionally, Counsel for the State has been involved in prosecution ofcases including preparation for contested hearing, pretrial hearings, grand jury case review, negotiations with opposing counsel, guilty pleas and other hearings in additional pending felony cases. ACCEPTED 03-14-00454-CR 3867091 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/22/2015 3:47:33 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

### WHEREFORE, The Attorneyforthe State requests an extension ofthirty (30) days to February, 22, 2015, in which to file State's Brief. Respectfully submitted,**L------_~~** 

### Richard Villarreal Assistant DistrictAttorney 51st Judicial District 124W. Beauregard, Suite B San Angelo, TX 76903 (325) 659-6583 State Bar No. 00797602
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me by the said Richard Villarreal, this 19th day ofJanuary, 

### A. D. 2015.**,t~t~?f.ZZ;'~** CHRISTINE GEORGE**~~1~f~** Notory Public, State ofTexas**;or::.·.~.··~i** My Commission Expires**~Z'J,:?I~I~~*** June 28, 2016

# ~~,;L~ Notary Public State ofTexas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee's Brief was this 19th 

### day of January, 2015, delivered to John Thomas Floyd 

### III and Christopher M. Choate, Attorneys for Appellant, through e-file .txcourts.gov 

# ( Richard Villarreal