alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und
Service GmbH & Co. KG for the annual period ended March 31, 2009, I, Dr. Adrian v. Hammerstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

/s/ DR. ADRIAN V. HAMMERSTEIN Dr. Adrian v. HammersteinChief Executive Officer


Date:
July 29, 2009

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

---



QuickLinks
#### C. F. Phillips v. State.

No. 24425.

June 15, 1948.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) January 18, 1950.

*166
      *Nat Gentry, Tyler,*for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for a violation of the Pure Food Law; the punishment assessed, a fine of $150.

The case of Neill v. State, No. 24,423, this day decided, (Page ______ of this volume) is, in all legal aspects, the same as that here presented.

The opinion in that case is here applicable, and reference is made thereto.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1998, and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      449,728
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     97,255
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         101,048
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,796
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,827
<COMMON>                                        59,230
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       38,744
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            121,216
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 219,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     20,831
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           185,554
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   10,576
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 245,507
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  660,827
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      316,026
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,980
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     277,927
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     286,907
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         29,119
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,587
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  31,706
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,875
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,650
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,769
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   21,881
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        16,953
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       11,264
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          42,153
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.86
        

</TABLE>
_____________ No. 95-2362EM

_____________ Keith E. Brown, also known as * Keith Brown; * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Andre Evans, also known as * Andre Evans-Bey, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Paul K. Delo, Supt; Norma * District Court for the Eastern Lavran, Captain; Lonnie Salts, * District of Missouri. Lieutenant; Phillip Nixon, * Sargeant; James McGinley, * [UNPUBLISHED] Sargeant; David McPeak, COI; * Joseph Holloway, COI; Donald * Beauchamp, COI; Lloyd Hodges, * COI; Earnest Jarvis, COI; * William Kitchell, COI; William * Major, COII; Unknown Davis, * COI; Greg Wilson; Fred Treece; * Charles W. Harris, CSII; Karen * Festenmaker; L. Rosenberg; Don * Roper, Asst. Supt., * * Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: June 7, 1996 Filed: June 14, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________
PER CURIAM. On appeal, Keith E. Brown, a Missour i inmate, challenges the amended ju dgment awarding nominal damages following a zero-damage jury awar d against two of the defendants in Brown's 42 U.S.C.

### -2-

§ 198 3 excessive force action. Brown also contends the district cour t improperlydenied Brown's motion for new trial on the issue of damages
. Because this appeal involves the straightforward application of settle d principles of law, an extended discussion is not warranted. We are unable to r eview the nominal damage award because Brown failed to provide a complete transcript on appeal. Brattrud v. Townof Exline , 628 F.2d 1098, 1099 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). Contrary to Brown's view, a finding of Eighth Amendment liability does not require an a ward of actual or punitive damages. See Smith v. Wade , 461 U.S. 30, 52 (1983); Cummings v. Malone , 995 F.2d 817, 822-23 (8th Cir. 1993). Also, the district court' s submis sionof a defective nominal damage instruction (stating the jur y "may" rather than "mu st" award nominal damages) does not constitute plain error. See Warren v. Fanning , 950 F.2d 1370, 1374 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 836 (1992). Finally, the district court did not commit error in requiring Brown to pay costs under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See O'Brien v. City of Greers Ferry , 873 F.2d 1115, 1120 (8th Cir. 1989). We thus affirm the distri ct court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029301
<NAME> A M MILLER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,186
<INVENTORY>                                     68,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,105
<PP&E>                                          87,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### Edward H. Royal v. State.

No. 25150.

February 21, 1951.

*469
      *W. P. Spillman,*Wellington, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The state, in the information, elected to describe the highway upon which the appellant was alleged to have driven the automobile as being “Highway 82 South of Wellington, Texas.”

We have searched this record in vain for any testimony supporting this allegation.

Because of the failure to sustain this allegation, the testimony is insufficient to support the conviction. Hadley v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 27, 205 S. W. 2d 374; Stasney v. State, 151 Tex. Cr. R. 563, 208 S. W. 2d 894.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 4, 2010 | /s/Kenneth R. Burk                                   |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Kenneth R. Burk                                      |
|                              | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 10.2


 





CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED – CONFIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION. THE OMITTED PORTIONS HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH “[***].”







CHANGE MANAGEMENT FORM


Number 3


 


	
Program: Support.com SOW #1, Wireless Gateway Support

	
PCR No.:


	
Originator:  Joy Park

	
Date:  March 4, 2014


	
Department: NCO

	
Phone #: [***]

	
Title:  Exec. Dir. of


Contract & Strategy





	
Locations Impacted: N/A


	
Requested Implementation Date:  March 10, 2014


	
Estimated Hours: (LOE) N/A

	
x Billable         o Non Billable

	
Billing Rate/Hour:


See below.





	
Fixed Fee Cost (if applicable) See below.


	
Type of Change:  Wireless Gateway Support, Initial New Hire Training, under Section 5 of SOW#1 to the MSA.


	
Scope of Change:

	
x Minor (Anything within current contract)

	
o Major (may require contract amendment)


MUST BE REVIEWED BY Business and/or P&L Owner





	
 Notwithstanding anything in the SOW#1 to the contrary, for the training of an incremental [***] customer service representatives (CSRs) (i.e. beyond the current [***] CSRs), Comcast will pay Vendor (Support.com) a minimum, not to exceed [***] for the Training Program (set forth in Section 5 of SOW#1) from the period of March 17, 2014 to March 31, 2014, to be invoiced by Vendor to Comcast after April 1, 2014.  This payment of a minimum, not to exceed [***] will not limit the actual amount payable for training hours actually incurred for the Training Program under SOW #1.





	
Area(s) of Change


	
o    Accounting/Payroll

	
o    Network


	
o    Data Processing

	
o    Resource Planning


	
o    General Facilities

	
o    Quality Assurance


	
o    Human Resources

	
o    Telecom


	
o    IT/BI

	
x    Training


	
o    Operations

	
o    Recruiting


	
o    Miscellaneous (Please describe below)

	
 


	
o    Other:





 




	

Comcast Authorization (SRT Comcast/LOB POC)


Comcast Representative’s Signature   



	
   /s/ Brian Duffy

	
 





 





	
Print Name 

	Brian Duffy	
 

	
Date  

	
3/13/14







	
Support.com,Inc. Authorization:


Support.com Representative’s Signature 

	   /s/ Joshua Pickus	





	
Print Name 

	Joshua Pickus	
 

	
Date  

	
3/12/14







 




 


*** CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL REDACTED AND SEPARATELY FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ***
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ending July 29, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregory J. Young, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of 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/  Gregory J. Young                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Gregory  J. Young                      |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

May 14,2008

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30730

AVENGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SOUTHPOINT MARINA, ET AL.,

Defendants,

SOUTHPOINT MARINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-3424-C)

January 5, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In our April 13, 1998, opinion herein, we severed the appeal

of the corporate defendant Port Isabel Marina/South Point, Inc.

(also known as Southpoint Marina) because of its pending bankruptcy

proceedings in which said party was debtor ( In re Port Isabel

Marina/South Point, Inc., United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern** At the same time, we in all things affirmed the judgment in

the nonsevered portion of the case (including the appeal of Scott Rowland (individually and doing business as Southpoint Marina).

*** All pending, undisposed-of motions pertinent to said severed case are denied.

2 District of Texas, McAllen Division, originally filed as No. 97-

21408-B-11 in said court), and we abated that severed appeal

p ending termination of said bankruptcy proceeding or lifting the

automatic stay therein, whichever was first. * * We have now been

informed that in September 1998 a final decree was entered in the

referenced bankruptcy closing the bankruptcy case. Counsel for the

corporate defendant-appellant has also advised that the corporate

defendant and all of its assets have been sold.

Accordingly, the severed portion of this case involving the

appeal of the said corporate defendant is now reactivated, and the

Court, after consideration of the briefs, pertinent portions of the

record, and the argument of counsel (this case was fully argued to

the Court before this Court’s order of April 13, 1998), concludes

that no cause for reversal has been demonstrated, and accordingly

as to said severed portion of this cause, namely the appeal of the

said corporate defendant, the judgment of the district court is in

all things AFFIRMED. ***
NO. 07-05-0378-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 26, 2005

______________________________

ELTON ORTIZ, Appellant v. ZONIA SCOTT, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE JU STICE O F THE PEA CE COURT, PRECINCT 1 OF POTT ER COUNTY;

NO. 25,515; HON. JIM TIPTON, PRES IDING

_______________________________ Memorandu

m Dismissal

_____________________ __________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Elton O rtiz appeals to this court from an order of dismissal dismissing his suit initiated in the Justice of the Peace Court , Precinct No. 1, Potter County. A court of appeals lacks jur isdiction to entertain a di rect appeal from a justice cour t. Tejas Elevat

or Co. v. Concord E

lev ator, Inc. , 982 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.– Dallas 1998, no pet.). Instead, jurisdic

tion lay i n either a count y or dis trict cour

t depending upon w hether the civil jurisdict ion of the county c ourt is tr ansferred to a district court. Id. ; accord , T EX . C IV . P RAC .2

& R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.001(a) & (b) (Ver non 1997). Or, appeal may be had to a county cour t at law. See T EX . G OV . C ODE A NN . 25.003(a) (Ve rnon 2004) (s tating that a count y court at law has

jurisdic tion over all causes and proceedings civil and criminal, original and appellate, prescribed by law). Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. Brian Quinn Chief Justice
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 Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean P. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

| /s/ SEAN P. MCGRATH                            |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Sean P. McGrath                                |
| Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner |
| September 11, 2015                             |
Exhibit
31.2
  CERTIFICATION
  I, Daniel
Imperato, certify that:
  1.           I
have reviewed this Amendment #1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Imperiali,
Inc.;
  2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
  3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:
  (a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
  (C)           Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s
internal control over financial reporting; and
  5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
  (b)           Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date:  May
      1, 2009
                /s/Daniel
      ImperatoDaniel
      ImperatoPrincipal
      Financial Officer