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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rogue WaveSoftware, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Teresa S. Madden, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

 

| Dated:  May 12, 2003 | /s/ TERESA S. MADDEN                      |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                      |                                           |
|                      | **Teresa S. Madden Corporate Controller** |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Case No. 05-cr-57-01-SM

Gordon Reid

ORDER

Re: Document No. 609, Provisional Motion for Judgment of

Acquittal or, in the Alternative, for New Trial

Ruling: Denied. The evidence, taken in the light most

favorable to the jury’s verdict, was more than sufficient to

support that verdict; indeed, the evidence of guilt was

overwhelming. Essentially for the reasons articulated by the

government in its objection (document no. 57), the grounds offered

by defendant in support of his motion are not persuasive. The

issues raised have either been raised and resolved previously, and

nothing new has been presented warranting a different result, or,

the issues raised concern factual matters resolved by the jury, or

are without merit. 

Date: January 4, 2008

________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Don Feith, AUSA

Robert Kinsella, AUSA

Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael Iacopino, Esq. 

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 621 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54841-54842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22313]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Office of 
Biotechnology Activity; Recombinant DNA Research; Notice of a Meeting 
of an NIH Blue Ribbon Panel

    There will be a meeting of the NIH Blue Ribbon Panel to advise on 
the Risk Assessment of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases 
Laboratories (NEIDL). The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 14, 
2008, at the Roxbury Center for the Arts, Hibernian Hall, 184 Dudley 
Street, Roxbury, MA

[[Page 54842]]

02119 from approximately 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
    Discussions will focus on principles and strategies for effective 
community engagement. There will also be time allotted on the agenda 
for public comment.
    Sign up for public comment will begin at approximately 5:30 p.m. on 
October 14, 2008. In the event that time does not allow for all those 
interested to present oral comments, anyone may file written comments 
using the address below.
    For further information concerning this meeting contact Ms. Laurie 
Lewallen, Advisory Committee Coordinator, Office of Biotechnology 
Activities, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Mail 
Stop Code 7985, Bethesda, MD 20892-7985, telephone 301-496-9838, e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ec80899b8d8080808dac8388c2828584c28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="573b3220363b3b3b3617383379393e3f79303821">[email protected]</span></a>. Background information may be obtained by 
contacting NIH OBA by e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c232e2d0c232862222524622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca3aead8ca3a8e2a2a5a4e2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 16, 2008.
Kelly R. Fennington,
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Biotechnology Activities, 
National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. E8-22313 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 03, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 03, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0241. DERRIC DESHAWN CANTRELL v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

09CR1449
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000             MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999             NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         769,945               1,073,196
<SECURITIES>                                   323,438                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  321,673                 136,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,939                 201,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,514,521               1,420,284
<PP&E>                                       1,255,222               1,393,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,949                 114,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,799,751               4,447,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,507,240               1,812,503
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,114,706                       0
<COMMON>                                     3,488,665               3,488,665
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,799,751               4,447,720
<SALES>                                        764,535                 492,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,648,663              25,678,723
<CGS>                                          745,890                 330,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,630,018              25,517,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,563,432               2,096,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             200,925                 321,303
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,855,223)             (2,370,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,669                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,862,892)             (2,370,574)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,862,892)             (2,370,574)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.67)                  (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, MICHAEL ROSENFELD, Chief Executive Officer of EduLink, Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby certify, in accordance with 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
                  period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.


Dated May 19, 2003                                 /S/ Michael Rosenfeld
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   MICHAEL ROSENFELD
                                                    Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      15,600,980              15,600,980
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              218,501,952             218,501,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,343,992               2,343,992
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                         515,715                 515,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,887                 181,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             236,832,950             236,832,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      151,982,838             151,982,838
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        96,694                  96,694
<OTHER-SE>                                  84,753,418              84,753,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               236,832,950             236,832,950
<SALES>                                      7,951,873              17,900,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,672,075               4,961,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               605,000               1,005,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,984,344               5,086,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,990,458               7,958,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,532,034               2,929,079
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,458,424               5,029,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,458,424               5,029,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25                    0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25<F1>                0.65<F1>
<FN>
<F1> DILUTED EPS CHANGED DUE TO NEW CALCULATION OF WTD AVERAGE SHARES 
OUTSTANDING UNDER FASB-128.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
In the Senate of the United States,

May 21, 2001.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1696) entitled ‘‘An Act to expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the District of Columbia.’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

1 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL SITE

2 AND DESIGN.

3 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the World

4 War II memorial described in plans approved by the Com5 mission of Fine Arts on July 20, 2000 and November 16,

6 2000, and selected by the National Capital Planning Com7 mission on September 21, 2000 and December 14, 2000, and

8 in accordance with the special use permit issued by the Sec9 retary of the Interior on January 23, 2001, and numbered

10 NCR–NACC–5700–0103, shall be constructed expeditiously

11 at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site in the District of Colum-
2

HR 1696 EAS

1 bia in a manner consistent with such plans and permits,

2 subject to design modifications, if any, approved in accord3 ance with applicable laws and regulations.

4 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF COMMEMORATIVE WORKS ACT.

5 Elements of the memorial design and construction not

6 approved as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be

7 considered and approved in accordance with the require8 ments of the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001

9 et seq.).

10 SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

11 The decision to locate the memorial at the Rainbow

12 Pool site in the District of Columbia and the actions by

13 the Commission of Fine Arts on July 20, 2000 and Novem14 ber 16, 2000, the actions by the National Capital Planning

15 Commission on September 21, 2000 and December 14, 2000,

16 and the issuance of the special use permit identified in sec17 tion 1 shall not be subject to judicial review.

Attest:

Secretary.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1696

AMENDMENT
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1389

To amend the Head Start Act to authorize the appropriation of

$11,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Head Start Act to authorize the appropriation

of $11,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 639(a) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.

4 9834(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘such sums’’ and all that

5 follows through ‘‘2003’’, and inserting ‘‘$11,500,000,000

6 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary

7 for fiscal year 2003’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 2-29-2000
BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR ALTIVA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH SECOND QUARTER 10-Q 2-29-2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           3,102
<SECURITIES>                                    31,009
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,041)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,490
<PP&E>                                           2,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,338)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,235
<BONDS>                                         37,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,342
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,296
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,213)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,460)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  7,743
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,990
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51


</TABLE>
#### Benjamin Cabagyo SANDOVAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70632.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

Before BROWNING, PREGERSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Sandoval’s request for a waiver of deportation pursuant to Section 241(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(A), concluding Sandoval’s deliberate course of misconduct to deceive the INS outweighed the positive equities in his favor.1

There is no limit to the factors the IJ and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) may consider when exercising discretion to grant or deny such a waiver. *I.N.S. v. Yang,*519 U.S. 26, 30-31, 117 S.Ct. 350, 136 L.Ed.2d 288 (1996). Such an exercise of discretion “necessitates a balancing of an alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations present to determine whether a grant of relief is in the best interests of this country.” *Matter of Tijam,*22 I. & N. Dec. 408 (BIA 1988). To satisfy the abuse of discretion standard of review, the IJ and BIA must take into account all relevant factors without acting in an arbitrary, illegal, or irrational fashion. Ca*sem v. I.N.S.,*8 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir.1993) (citing *Braun v. I.N.S.,*992 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir.1993)).

The IJ and BIA did not err by considering Sandoval’s initial entry fraud when balancing the factors in favor of and against a waiver. *Matter of Tijam,*22 I. & N. Dec. 408; *Yang,*519 U.S. at 30-31, 117 S.Ct. 350. Both Sandoval’s own attorney and the government’s attorney on cross-examination explored the circumstances surrounding his initial entry fraud during the hearing. Sandoval did not object to this inquiry nor appeal the IJ’s consideration of Sandoval’s initial entry fraud to the BIA.

*378Contrary to Sandoval’s argument, the IJ did not apply an extreme hardship test to his waiver request. The IJ enumerated both the positive and negative equities and balanced the relative merits of each. The IJ’s decision to deny Sandoval a waiver of deportation, adopted by the BIA, was not an abuse of discretion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 re-designated Section 241 as Section 237. Because Sandoval’s deportation proceedings began before April 1, 1997, and the BIA issued its final order after October 1, 1996, IIRIRA’s transitional rules apply and this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See IIRIRA §§ 306(c)(1) and 309(a).
#### COREIL v. VIDRINE.

No. 1595.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 8, 1936.

*842Guillory & Guillory, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

Dubuisson & Dubuisson, of Opelousas, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

The suit is by executory process to foreclose a mortgage on certain land and improvements in the town of Ville Platte, the balance due on the mortgage being the sum of $1,249, plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The order for executory process was signed by the judge on December 10, 1935. On December 12, 1935, defendant obtained an order of appeal from the judgment and filed a bond for a suspensive appeal on the same day.

The only issue on appeal from an order of executory process is whether or not the authentic evidence justified the issuance of the writ. It is urged in this case that the order was signed by the judge without proper evidence as the note and a certified copy of the mortgage were not annexed to or filed with the petition. The record filed in this court fails to show the note or copy of the mortgage necessary to support the executory proceedings.' Under these circumstances, the order for the executory process cannot stand and it must be set aside. Terrel v. Ferguson, 4 La.App. 339; Commercial Credit Co., Inc., v. Melba Candy Co., 3 La.App. 267.

The only remaining question for this court to decide is whether or not to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim as in case of non-suit, or to remand the case in order to permit plaintiff to amend his pleadings and supply the necessary evidence to support the writ. Plaintiff has filed a motion in this court asking that the case be remanded for this purpose.

From the motion to remand, which is verified by an affidavit of one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, it appears that the failure to annex the note and copy of the mortgage to the petition was through an oversight of counsel’s stenographer. It further appears from the motion that plaintiff’s attorneys have in their'possession the note and copy of the mortgage and are therefore in position to supply the necessary authentic evidence to support the writ. It also appears that the judge failed to notice the absence of this authentic proof when he signed the order.

Under the facts in the case as shown by the record, and exercising the discretion vested in appellate courts by article 906 of the Code of Practice, we think that justice requires that the case be remanded to afford plaintiff an opportunity to supplement his pleadings and supply the available evidence. Citizens’ Bank et al. v. Crooks & Maristany et al., 21 La.Ann. 324.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that the writ of executory process signed herein on December 10, 1935, be and the same is hereby avoided and set aside; it is further ordered that the case be remanded to the district court to enable plaintiff to file supplemental pleadings and supply additional evidence for such action as the lower court may take thereon, and in accordance with the views herein expressed. Plaintiff-appellee to pay the cost of the appeal; the cost of the lower court to await the final determination of the case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gilbert Maurice Goudreau

v.

George Nathaniel Washington

No. 06-fp-403

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-403-SM.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 5, 2006

s R. Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judge

cc: Gilbert Maurice Goudreau, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00403-SM Document 5 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 1