alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward G. Caminos, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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/ Edward G. Caminos*   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Edward   G. Caminos       |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer |   |
| May 16,   2011       |   |

 

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 23, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1500

Lower Tribunal No. F12-23766B

________________

Enrique Pena Rodriguez,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de 

la O, Judge.

Law Offices of Michelle Walsh, P.A., and Michelle Walsh, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

segTEL, Inc.,

v. Civil No. 07-340-JL

Town of Hanover, et al,

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently scheduled for

February 19, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. will include a substantive,

meaningful discussion of the parties’ claims and defenses. 

Counsel are expected to be prepared to engage in an open,

cooperative discussion in good faith. Counsel are reminded of

the obligations imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3) and (4), and

should be prepared to explain the factual basis underlying any

claims or defenses they have pleaded.

Each party shall be represented at the Preliminary Pretrial

Conference by counsel authorized to bind the party on all

matters.

To the extent that the substance of this order constitutes a

departure from the customary Preliminary Pretrial practice to

which counsel are accustomed, the court apologizes for the short

notice, and will bear this in mind at the conference.

Case 1:07-cv-00340-JL Document 19 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

February 15, 2008

cc: Robert D. Ciandella, Esq.

Robert M. Derosier, Esq.

Carolyn K. Cole, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00340-JL Document 19 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>                                  5 

         

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   INTERIM  FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  OF  PRIME   SUCCESSION,   INC.  AND
SUBSIDIARIES,  FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023294
<NAME>                        Prime Succession, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-01-1999
<CASH>                                               2,387 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38,055 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         8,307 
<INVENTORY>                                         50,700 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    23,418 
<PP&E>                                              76,570 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6,675 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     388,944 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               15,251 
<BONDS>                                            211,639 
<COMMON>                                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<OTHER-SE>                                         119,294 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       388,944 
<SALES>                                             25,794 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    25,794 
<CGS>                                               15,959 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       15,959 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,759 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       682 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5,852 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        224 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            18 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    206 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                           206 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6210
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH THOMAS, SR., Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-514-A) Submitted: April 21, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although Appellant's notice of appeal was filed beyond the ten-day appeal period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), the record supports a finding of excusable neglect. Accordingly, we decline to remand to the district court, and we have considered the appeal on the merits. See United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353-54 (4th Cir. 1985); see generally United States v. Petty , 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir. 1996). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (1994) motion for a downward departure based on his efforts toward rehabilitation. * We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas , No. CR-94-514-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of February 27, 2019 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2019-1 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2020, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of May, 2020.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TRANSCRYPT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,247
<INVENTORY>                                     15,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,065
<PP&E>                                           2,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,628
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           143
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,136
<SALES>                                         34,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,939
<CGS>                                           27,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (933)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,325)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,325)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.56)
<FN>
<F1>Interest expense is net of $1,350 of interest and other income less $417 of
interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.5







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in this Annual Report on Form 40-F/A (Amendment No.1) for the year ended June 30, 2023, of Sangoma Technologies Corporation, of our report
dated September 26, 2022, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sangoma Technologies Corporation as at June 30, 2022, June
30, 2021 and July 1, 2020 and for the years ended June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2021, as filed with the United States Securities Exchange
Commission (“SEC”).



We also hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10 (No. 333-261071) and Form F-3 (No. 333-270918) of Sangoma Technologies Corporation,
of our report dated September 26, 2022, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sangoma Technologies Corporation, as at June
30, 2022, June 30, 2021 and July 1, 2020 and for the years ended June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2021, as filed with the SEC.



/s/ MNP LLP



Chartered Professional Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants

September 28, 2023

Toronto, Canada
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

On March 26, 2009, the court issued a procedural order in

which it explained that the pending motions for summary judgment

raised a claim construction issue that would have to be addressed

before the motions could be resolved and that the trial scheduled

to begin in July of 2009 would be continued to a date to be

determined after claim construction. The court also set a

briefing schedule for claim construction. Neither party filed a

motion for reconsideration.

On April 21, 2009, Marine Polymer filed a “Response to the

Procedural Order Concerning Claim Construction,” and a “Motion to

Set Trial Schedule.” Both the Response and the Motion to Set

Trial Schedule seek reconsideration of the court’s March 26,

2009, procedural order. Motions for reconsideration, however,

absent circumstances that have not been shown here, must be filed

within ten days of the challenged order. LR 7.2(e). Therefore,

both the Response and the Motion to Set Trial Schedule are

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 131 Filed 04/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

untimely to the extent they contest matters decided in the

court’s procedural order issued on March 26, 2009.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to set

trial schedule (document no. 130) is denied. If the plaintiff

intended to have the “Response to the Procedural Order Concerning

Claim Construction” considered as its memorandum on claim

construction, the plaintiff shall file a notice to clarify the

purpose of the Response on or before May 1, 2009, which is the

deadline for filing claim construction memoranda.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 23, 2009

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Richard B. McNamara, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 131 Filed 04/23/09 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00077-SM Document 19 Filed 04/25/08 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-00077-SM Document 19 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          11,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,841
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,283
<BONDS>                                         30,698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,586
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,608
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,662
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.66)


</TABLE>
#### Phyllis Dixon et al., Respondents, v Thomas Forman et al., Appellants.

[808 NYS2d 78]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered June 28, 2005, awarding plaintiffs the principal amount of $119,500 and dismissing the counterclaims, upon the prior grant of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the denial of defendants’ cross motion for discovery, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action for return of their down payment on the purchase of a cooperative apartment. After plaintiffs established a prima facie case that they had submitted their application in good faith, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact to demonstrate that there was a modification of the contract. Defendants failed to produce evidence that plaintiffs had agreed to the creation of the trust or to the other conditions imposed by the Board *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). There was no evidence that plaintiffs had modified the contract, and, in any event, there was no evidence that defendants detrimentally relied on such a modification.

Defendants’ counterclaims were properly dismissed. They failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would aid in their defense. The court properly granted summary judgment even though discovery was incomplete *(Doherty v City of New York,*16 AD3d 124 [2005]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 2006


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1374 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 396
107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1374

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2002

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              May 23, 2002

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ``Philip E. 
                     Ruppe Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 600 
Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Philip E. Ruppe Post Office 
Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 396

107th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1374

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ``Philip E. 
                     Ruppe Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 23, 2002

                       Reported without amendment
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John A. Brooks

v. 07-cv-411-JD

NH Attorney General, et al.

O R D E R

The court permitted the parties to provide written argument

by January 7, 2007. The court did not permit parties to file

additional “evidence”. The affidavit of Eric Haskell (Document

no. 18-2) is ordered struck from the record.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 9, 2008

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:07-cv-00411-JD Document 26 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 1
**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 on Form 10-QSB of Navidec, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas E. Kelly, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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/ Thomas E. Kelly*                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Kelly                                     |
| Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
| November 22, 2004                                   |

 

----