alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5



CERTIFICATION



I, Glen Leibowitz, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form
40-F of Acreage Holdings, 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The issuer’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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer’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 issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over
financial reporting; and



5 The issuer’s other certifying officer(s)
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors
and the audit committee of the issuer’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 issuer’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 issuer’s internal control over financial
reporting.



|Date: April 29, 2019 | By: | /s/ Glen Leibowitz                          
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Glen Leibowitz                              
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                     |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Paul Durando, certify that:



The Form 10-K of Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. for the period ended February
29, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nu Horizons
Electronics Corp. for the periods presented.



This certification is being
furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, shall not be deemed to be filed as part of the periodic report described herein nor shall it be deemed filed by Nu
Horizons Electronics Corp. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



/s/    PAUL DURANDOPaul Durando Vice President, Finance Date: May 7, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by section 906 has been provided to Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and will be retained by Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 6
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 161-9 filed 10/17/12 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-163-PB

Frederico Gonzales

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for February 3, 2009, citing the need for

additional time to prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 3, 2009 to May 5, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00163-PB Document 15 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 27, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to April 23, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 22, 2009

cc: Glenn Geiger, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00163-PB Document 15 Filed 01/23/09 Page 2 of 2
#### WHITNEY TRUST *&*SAV. BANK v. BARBARICH.

No. 14743.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 13, 1933.

Delvaille H. Theard, of New Orleans, for relator.

Pomes & McCabe and Ed. Froeba, all of New Orleans, for respondent.

HIGGINS, Judge.

This matter comes before the court on a petition for a writ of prohibition. Plaintiff sued defendant on a promissory note. Defendant filed an exception to the plaintiff’s capacity to bring the suit and, reserving the benefit of the exception, answered admitting that there was an outstanding note signed by the respondent, but averring that she did not know if the note ref erred, to in the petition was the note she signed.

On the -trial of the case the plaintiff offered the note and other evidence to prove the allegations of the petition.' Defendant, although represented by counsel, did not offer any evidence tending to support the exception or defense contained in the answer.

The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, as prayed for, and the defendant appealed suspensively, furnishing a bond.

Upon a proper rule taken by the plaintiff to test the qualifications of the surety, the trial court found that the surety did not possess sufficient assets over and above liabilities to sign the suspensive appeal bond and ordered the defendant to produce a good and solvent surety, in default of which the appeal would be dismissed. The defendant then applied to this court for a writ of prohibition and on August 9,1933, an alternative writ was issued forbidding the trial judge to proceed further in the matter.

On October 25, 1933, the case was called before this court for trial on the merits. Counsel for plaintiff was present and insisted on the case being tried, waiving plaintiff’s right to claim that the appeal was not properly taken. Counsel for defendant was absent and made no request either through any communication or in open court for a continuance. The case was properly posted, and, upon the insistence of plaintiff’s counsel that the case be tried, proper evidence sustaining the allegations of the petition was adduced and the judgment affirmed.

*676The only purpose of the writ of prohibition was to prevent the trial judge from depriving the defendant of her alleged right to be heard on the appeal. When the plaintiff waived its right to further question the sufficiency of the surety on the bond and conceded the right of the defendant to be heard on appeal, the question presented by the petition for the writ of prohibition became a moot one. Therefore, there is now nothing before the court in this proceeding.

For the reasons assigned the alternative writ of prohibition is now recalled and vacated, and the petition of the relator is dismissed, at her cost.

Writ of prohibition recalled; petition of relator dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Congregation Gates of Prayer of Far Rockaway, Inc., Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 456]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of Finance, dated October 18, 2000, which denied the petitioner’s request to cancel its real estate tax debt, the petitioner appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated May 10, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 28, 2001, as denied its motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the municipal respondents.

The record supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the petitioner was not entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a (1) (a) and cancellation of the retroactive tax as*408sessment imposed *(see Congregation Zemach David of New Sq. v County of Rockland,*163 AD2d 668, 670; *cf. Mohonk Trust v Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner,*47 NY2d 476).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### Dean Kirschner, Respondent, v John Laudicina et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[745 NYS2d 910]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants John Laudicina and SOS Electronic Services, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated December 14, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff was trimming trees when an accident occurred. His Labor Law § 240 claim must fail since a tree is not a structure within the meaning of that section *(see Lombardi v Stout,*80 NY2d 290, 295-296). In addition, the activity the plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident constituted “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” *(Serviss v Long Is. Light. Co.,*226 AD2d 442, 443 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Gavin v Long Is. Light. Co.,*255 AD2d 551).

However, the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs common-law negligence claims *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324). Krausman, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50874 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DANIEL OLGUIN-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2487-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Daniel OlguinRamos raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00788-CR

Lozaro Morales Toca a/k/a Oresie Mesa a/k/a Oreste Masa, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 41,626, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Lozaro Morales Toca seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for indecency

with a child. Sentence was imposed on September 8, 1992. Toca’s pro se “notice of out of time

appeal” was filed on September 21, 2006. Under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose

of the purported appeal in anymanner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton

v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1996).

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 25, 2007

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2101 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2101

  To establish that it is the policy of the United States that public 
 lands be used for public utility infrastructure before private lands 
        are condemned for such purpose, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2001

 Mr. Calvert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To establish that it is the policy of the United States that public 
 lands be used for public utility infrastructure before private lands 
        are condemned for such purpose, 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 EMINENT DOMAIN BY PUBLIC UTILITIES.

    It is the policy of the United States that public lands be used for 
the siting of electric utility transmission facilities and other 
utility infrastructure before private property is acquired by 
condemnation for such purposes.
                                 <all>
```
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending June 4, 2022

----

Regulations and Policies            Privacy Act -- publication and request for comment to modify existing systems of records: (1) BGFRS-5 (FRB-EEO Discrimination Complaint File) and (2) BGFRS-36 (FRB-Federal Reserve Application Name Check System).            -Approved, May 26, 2022            (A/C)          
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) by Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. (the Company), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies 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, 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                           
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | BEVERLY HILLS BANCORP INC.
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    LARRY B. FAIGIN    
|                      |  |  |  | Larry B. Faigin           
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer   

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form
10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frank E. Dow

v. Civil No. 07-cv-355-JL

William L. Wrenn, Commissioner,

New Hampshire Department of

Corrections

O R D E R

Before the Court is Frank Dow’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 1), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The matter is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether or not the claims raised in the petition are

facially valid and may proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts

(“§ 2254 Rules”); United States District Court District of New

Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2) (authorizing magistrate

judge to preliminarily review pro se prisoner filings pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

For the reasons fully explained in the Report and

Recommendation issued simultaneously with this Order, I find that

Dow has stated one cognizable federal habeas claim, that his

Case 1:07-cv-00355-JL Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 3
1In my Report and Recommendation I recommend the dismissal

of four other claims raised in Dow’s petition.

2

attorney at his parole revocation hearing failed to provide him

with the effective assistance of counsel.1 I also have found

that the ineffective assistance claim has not yet been properly

exhausted, but that Dow is presently taking steps to exhaust the

matter in the state courts. Accordingly, I will grant Dow’s

request to stay the instant petition (document no. 6) pending

complete exhaustion of his federal ineffective assistance claim

in the state courts.

Dow is directed to notify this Court of the status of his

state court proceedings every ninety days during the pendency of

the stay of this action. Once the New Hampshire Supreme Court

has reached a final decision on his claims, Dow must amend his

petition to notify this Court of that decision. Dow’s amended

petition should include documentation, such as orders, motions,

petitions, notices of appeal, briefs, or other pleadings

demonstrating that the federal issue presented here was in fact

presented to the State courts for consideration. See Smith v.

Digmon, 434 U.S. 332, 333 (1978) (listing documents which would

enable a federal court to determine whether the grounds 

Case 1:07-cv-00355-JL Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 3
3

supporting the habeas petition had been presented for review in

the State courts).

Any failure to provide notice to this Court of the status of

his State court proceedings as directed in this Order, or to

amend the petition as directed, may result in the dismissal of

the petition for failure to demonstrate exhaustion. Any such

dismissal would be without prejudice, as it would be procedural

and not based on the merits of Dow’s claims. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 12, 2008

cc: Frank E. Dow, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00355-JL Document 8 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 3
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









The undersigned officer of Pizza Inn, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: September 16, 2010

By:
/s/ Nancy Ellefson

Vice President of Finance and Principal Accounting Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jody Burtsell

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00455-JL

New Hampshire Department

of Health and Human Services,

Commissioner

ORDER AFTER PRELIMINARY

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

June 11, 2009.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 10) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes:

• Completion of discovery -- October 1, 2009

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at

the conference, the following affirmative defenses are stricken

without prejudice to being reinstated on request if warranted by

the evidence: second (lack of jurisdiction); and fifth (failure

to mitigate--the plaintiff is not claiming damages per se).

Summary Judgment. The parties and counsel are advised that

compliance with Rule 56 and Local Rule 7.2(b), regarding

evidentiary support for factual assertions, and specification and

Case 1:08-cv-00455-JL Document 12 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 2
2

delineation of material issues of disputed fact, will be

required.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 12, 2009

cc: David P. Slawsky, Esq.

Jason D. Reimers, Esq.

Nancy J. Smith, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00455-JL Document 12 Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 2