alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                         FOR THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       AND THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert Scherne, interim chief financial officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of New Generation Holdings,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 I 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 is made known to us by others,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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 changes in the registrant's internal controls
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter) that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal controls over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

<PAGE>

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.


                                               /s/ Robert Scherne
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Robert Scherne
                                               Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 11, 2006
#### In the Matter of Mitchel B. Nerenberg (Admitted as Mitchel Bruce Nerenberg), an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

November 8,1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mady J. Edelstein*of counsel *(Hal R. Lieberman,*attorney), for petitioner.

*Mitchel B. Nerenberg,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Mitchel B. Nerenberg was admitted, as Mitchel Bruce Nerenberg, to the practice of law in the Second Judicial Department on October 22, 1975.

*100At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Department.

Mr. Nerenberg has submitted an affidavit of resignation to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee wherein he admits he engaged in professional misconduct by improperly removing funds from his escrow account.

Further, respondent states that he could not successfully defend himself against the charges now under investigation, and that he is also aware of other complaints filed against him.

The affidavit of resignation fully complies with section 603.11 of the court’s Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys (22 NYCRR). The Departmental Disciplinary Committee recommends that respondent’s resignation be accepted, and that respondent be disbarred.

Accordingly, respondent’s affidavit of resignation is accepted, the petition of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee is granted, and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s resignation from practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York is accepted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective November 8,1990.
#### Genaro Resendez DURAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 45681.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Sept. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1972.

Bradley C. Miles, San Angelo, for appellant.

*924Royal Hart, Dist. Atty., Aaron Goldberg, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Angelo, Jim D. Vol-lers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ODOM, Judge.

This appeal is from an order revoking probation.

The appellant was convicted of burglary on June 25, 1971, and punishment was assessed at five years. Imposition of the sentence was suspended and probation was granted.

One of the conditions of probation was that appellant commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or of the United States. On September 24, 1971, a motion to revoke probation was filed alleging that appellant violated the above condition by committing the offense of shoplifting. A hearing was held on November 22, 1971, and as a result thereof appellant’s probation was revoked.

The contention on appeal is that the trial judge abused his discretion in finding, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that appellant committed an “offense against the laws of this state,” thereby violating a condition of his probation.

The record reflects that on September 4, 1971, Homer Medlock, Security Manager for K-Mart Discount Store, observed the appellant removing a pair of brown, striped trousers from its place on the rack inside the K-Mart store. The appellant was seen taking the trousers into a dressing room; he was then seen coming out of the dressing room without the trousers. The dressing room was searched and no trousers were found. Appellant did not display the trousers at the register as he left the store. Medlock followed the appellant outside to the parking lot and told him to “hold it just a minute.” At that time, appellant ran and he was seen reaching down his trousers and throwing something down. He was apprehended and returned to the store and one of the persons chasing him retrieved a pair of trousers that “looked like” the same trousers appellant had removed from the store. Medlock testified that appellant had not been given permission to take the trousers.

We hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding.1 See Hill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 864. No abuse of discretion has been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. It should be further noted that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in probation revocation hearings. Kelly v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 483 S.W.2d 467.

ONION, Presiding Judge

(concurring).

I concur in the affirmance, but would note that this case supports the statement I made in the dissenting opinion in Kelly v. State, 483 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App.1972, No. 44,791), to the effect that trial judges are accustomed to applying the “reasonable doubt” standard of proof in revocation of probation cases.
EXHIBIT 32.01

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

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of iGATE Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Sunil Wadhwani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|Date: November 7, 2007                
|                                      
|/s/    SUNIL WADHWANI                 
|Sunil Wadhwani                        
|Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors,
|Chief Executive Officer and Director
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending February 15, 2014FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 1 of 6

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 2 of 6

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 3 of 6

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 4 of 6

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 5 of 6

Case 1:11-cv-02544-MSK-KLM   Document 50-2   Filed 05/09/14   USDC Colorado   Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00358-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANTHONY PAUL BREAUX,

Defendant.

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and

conviction, and Defendant Breaux was remanded to the custody of the United States

Marshal at sentencing, or has self-surrendered to the designated facility, as confirmed

by the United States Bureau of Prisons. As a result, all the conditions of an appearance

bond imposed by the Court as a pretrial matter to secure Defendant’s release, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or

sureties, if applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court

shall hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety

or the Defendant. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of May, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00358-CMA Document 43 Filed 05/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          82,409
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       8,324,940
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,098,993
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   875,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          8,496,538
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (272,555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               9,098,993
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                42,356
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                42,356
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,130
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           27,226
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                193,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (166,067)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (166,067)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (166,067)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.18)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         (8,120)<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,014
<INVENTORY>                                     49,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,189
<PP&E>                                          36,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,714
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,378
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,952
<SALES>                                        536,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               536,122
<CGS>                                          488,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  488,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,546
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,249
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>THIS ITEM IS SHOWN UNDER THE CATEGORY "OUTSTANDING CHECKS, NET" ON THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
<F2>THESE ITEMS ARE NOT SEPARATELY REPORTED ON TBC CORPORATIONS'S FORM 10-K.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**REVISED** 

# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 51018 Summary Calendar

**Deborah Laufer,**
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Galtesvar OM, L.L.C.,**
Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CV

- 588

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Deborah Laufer is a person with a disability within the meaning of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq . She sued Galtesvar, ow ner and operator of the Quality Inn &

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 3 0 , 20 21 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515846513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2021No. 20

- 51018

2 Suites in Carrizo Springs , Texas, alle ging violations of federal regulations because third

- party websites did not provide an option to book accessible rooms or information regarding whether such rooms were available at the Quality Inn & Suites. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1)

. She has filed hun dreds of similar lawsuits across the country, considering herself an ADA “tester.” The district court dismissed Laufer’s claims for lack of standing because her injuries were insufficiently “concrete” to confer standing. We **AFFIRM.**

We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction de novo

. Campos v. United States , 888 F.3d 724, 729 (5th Cir. 2018). Laufer bears the burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. See Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Standing requires an injury in fact that is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

This court recent ly issued a decision that address ed the identical issue presented here by the same plaintiff

. See Laufer v. Mann Hosp

. , L.L.C. , No.
20

- 50858 , slip op. (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021). The result therefore must be the

s ame

. Laufer’s injury is insufficiently concrete to confer standing , as she never alleged in either case that she tried or intended to book a room at the relevant d efendant’s hotel

. See i d. at 4. Just as in that case, she made only a general assertion of her “plans to travel to Texas as soon as the Covid crisis is over an d it is safe to travel.” See i d. at 4

. **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515846513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
**Exhibit 13**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

**Pursuant to 18****U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Gail Patricia Kelly, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2013 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   |   |   |   | Date: 4 November 2013 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |   |                       |
|   |   |   |   |   |                       |
|   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Gail Patricia Kelly    |
|   |   |   |   |   | Gail Patricia Kelly        |
|   |   |   |   |   | Managing Director and      |
|   |   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer    |

 

I, Philip Matthew Coffey, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2013 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | Date: 4 November 2013 |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |   |                       |
|   |   |   |   |   |                       |
|   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Philip Matthew Coffey  |
|   |   |   |   |   | Philip Matthew Coffey      |
|   |   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-2358

Lower Tribunal No. 17-598MPI

________________

Allen Lenoir, M.D.,

Appellant,

vs.

State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care 

Administration.

Allen Lenoir, M.D., in proper person.

Tracy Lee Cooper George (Tallahassee), Chief Appellate Counsel, 

and Nicholas A. Merlin (Tallahassee), Senior Attorney, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 
2

Affirmed. See Worster v. Dep’t of Health, 767 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2000) (holding: “In an appeal from an administrative proceeding, a 

party cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to 

or challenged before the agency”); Redfern v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 498 So. 

2d 1313, 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding nurse failed to establish that the 

Department abused its discretion in declining to accept exceptions to a 

recommended order filed after expiration of the statutory time period for filing 

such submissions). See also § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021) (providing that 

“the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the 

weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact”); Graham v. Estuary 

Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374, 1380 (Fla. 1981) (noting: “The reviewing court 

cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on a finding of fact or 

the weight thereof”); Lenard v. A.L.P.H.A. “A Beginning” Inc., 945 So. 2d 618, 

623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (observing that “[w]hen reviewing the findings and 

conclusions of a government agency, this court is not permitted to substitute 

its judgment for that of the agency if competent, substantial evidence 

supports the agency's factual findings and the agency correctly applied the 

applicable statutory criteria.”)