alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. R. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  |  |  |                                      
|                   |  |  |  | /s/    H. R. Brown                   
|                   |  |  |  | H. R. Brown                          
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8063

MAURICE GARVIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Secretary, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00460) Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 30, 2007 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
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 of Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raymond
F. Kunzmann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



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



/s/ Raymond F. Kunzmann
---------------------------
Raymond F. Kunzmann
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
EXHIBIT 4.16

                       ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 22nd day of November, 1995

B E T W E E N:

                  YORK MEDICAL INC.

                  ("York")

                  - and -

                  CBQYM INC.

                  ("Cbqym")

WHEREAS:

A.        Pursuant to a licensing agreement (the "Licensing Agreement") made the
          3rd day of May, 1995 between York and CBQYM S.A. ("CBQYM"), CBQYM
          granted to York a license to certain technology to which CBQYM holds
          rights.

B.        By articles of amendment dated September 28, 1995 York changed its
          name from Yorkton Medical Inc. to York Medical Inc.

C.        Pursuant to the terms of the Licensing Agreement, York agreed to
          assign its rights and obligations thereunder to Cbqym.

D.        As consideration for such assignment, Cbqym agrees to assume the
          obligations of York under the Licensing Agreement.

         NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH THAT in consideration of the
premises and of the payment of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration by Cbqym to York, (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereof
acknowledged by York) the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

1. York hereby grants, transfers, assigns and sets over absolutely until Cbqym,
its successors and assigns, all York's right, title and interest in and to the
Licensing Agreement and all of the rights, benefits and advantages whatsoever to
be derived therefrom from and after the date hereof.

2. Cbqym agrees to assume and to observe and perform all of the obligations of
York under the Licensing Agreement and Cbqym will indemnify and save harmless
York from and against all actions, suits, costs, losses, charges, damages and
expenses arising as a result of any default or non-observance or non-performance
on the part of Cbqym of any of the obligations of York under the Licensing
Agreement from and after the date hereof.


<PAGE>

3. This agreement will be binding upon and ensure to the benefit of each of the
parties hereto and its respective successors and assigns.

4. This agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Province of Ontario.

5. The parties agree to provide such further assurances as are reasonably
required by them to carry out the terms of this agreement.

                                        YORK MEDICAL INC.


                                        by:
                                           ---------------------------------


                                        CBQYM INC.

                                        by:
                                           ---------------------------------
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ELIAS KAZAN,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

RANIA HACHACHE,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 4D19-3548

[September 15, 2021]

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 502016DR006769XXXXNB.

Christopher R. Jette of Eisenberg & Fouts, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

appellant/cross-appellee.

Stuart R. Manoff of Manoff Mediation, LLC, Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellee/cross-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

This is a timely appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment 

dissolving the parties’ marriage, distributing their marital assets and 

liabilities, awarding alimony to the former wife, and establishing the 

parties’ timesharing arrangement with their two minor children, including 

the amount of child support to be paid to the former wife by the former 

husband. We affirm as to all issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal, 

except as to an error in the child support award.

The trial court adopted child support worksheets that calculated the 

former husband’s child support obligations. However, these worksheets 

calculated the child support award based on the former wife having 205 

overnights per year with the parties’ minor children and the former 

husband having 160 overnights per year with them, when instead the 

award should have been based on the former wife having 201 overnights 

and the former husband having 164 overnights. The former wife confesses 

that the trial court applied the incorrect number of overnights in 

calculating the child support award for all relevant post-judgment time 
2

periods. Thus, the child support award for all time periods must be 

recalculated based on the correct number of overnights the parties will 

enjoy with the minor children per year.

Accordingly, we affirm on all issues, except as to the child support 

award in the final judgment. On remand, the trial court shall recalculate

the child support award for all relevant time periods based on the former 

wife having 201 overnights per year with the minor children and the former 

husband having 164 overnights per year with them.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

FORST, KLINGENSMITH and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY CABRERA,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 10, 2012.

Defendant’s [Redacted] Motion to Compel Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 [filed September 6,

2012; docket #173] is denied as premature. Defendant neither sought, nor has the Court granted,

permission for Defendant to file a redacted copy of the motion to compel filed under restriction at

docket #172. Until the motion for restriction is adjudicated, the redacted copy of the motion is

simply duplicative of a motion already filed. The Court will inform the parties if and/or when it

requires a redacted copy of the motion to compel. 

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 179 Filed 09/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Dr. P. C. BLOUNT, Appellee, v. Mr. and Mrs. Ralph WOODWARD, Appellants.

No. 4230.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

Dec. 9, 1931.

Lyons & Prentiss, of Shreveport^ for appellants.

Harry V. Booth, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

TALIAFERRO, J.

This suit is on open account for professional services against defendants for $179 with interest from judicial demand. Defendants filed no answer, nor did they make any appearance in the lower court, save to take suspensive appeal and file bond. They have not appeared in this court, nor have they filed brief. The appeal was evidently taken for delay, and is abandoned.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Santiago, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered on March 30, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 4 *Vi*to 9 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

In this prosecution for third degree criminal sale of a controlled substance arising out of the sale by the defendant of two glassine envelopes of heroin to an undercover police officer, the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s reasonable doubt charge is unpreserved. Were we to reach in the interest of justice, we would note that the New York Court of Appeals has approved similar language, i.e., that a reasonable doubt is one for which a juror could give a reason if called upon to do so (1 CJI[NY] 2.51, 3.07, 6.20 [1983]; *People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296, 300, *cert denied*459 US 847; *People v Jones,*27 NY2d 222, 226). Moreover, the charge, when read as a whole, clearly conveyed to the jurors that the People were required to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Fox,*72 AD2d 146, 147), and any error in the charge should be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt. *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
1

Filed 5/24/17



## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) S225193

v. )

) Ct. App. 4/2 E060758

RON DOUGLAS PATTERSON, )

) Riverside County

Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No . EE220540

________________________________ ____ )

ORDER MODIF Y IN G OPINION

THE COURT:

The opinion filed herein on March 27, 2017 , appearing at 2 Cal.5th 885, is

modified as follows:

The first se ntence of the second paragraph on page 901 is revised to read: “To

establish that he was prejudiced by counsel‟s alleged errors, Patterson must show „that

a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel‟s incompetence, he would not

have pled guilty‟ ( Resendiz

, supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 253) to the charge of possession of

MDMA, which subjected him to mandatory deportation.”

Th i s modification do es not affect the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Richard E. McDonald, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the Issuer);



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 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 Issuers fourth
fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2004 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 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.



|    |  |                                                                                           
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ RICHARD E. MCDONALD                                                                   
|    |  | Richard E. McDonald President, Chief Executive
Officer, Chairman of the Board of Directors



Dated: May 13, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE NINA Y. WANG

 

Civil Action: 11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Date: July 10, 2015

Courtroom Deputy: Brandy Simmons FTR: NYW COURTROOM C-204

Parties Attorney(s)

KATHERYN KIPLING, Bradley Aaron Levin

Kerri J. Atencio

Stephen W. Wahlberg

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Franklin D. Patterson

Katelyn Shea Werner

Defendant.

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 1:31 p.m.

Appearance of counsel.

Argument held on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [150] filed on May 29, 2015. 

ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [150] is 

TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.

ORDERED: Parties may file responses to the Motion for Summary Judgment [149] on or 

before July 31, 2015. Responses are limited to ten (10) pages. Further oral 

argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment is set for August 20, 2015, at 

10:00 a.m. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 159 Filed 07/10/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Court in Recess: 2:12 p.m. Hearing concluded. Total time in Court: 00:41

* To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119. 

Case 1:11-cv-01948-NYW-CBS Document 159 Filed 07/10/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BRIGHT HORIZONS, INC. AT DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,035,424
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,593,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   399,314
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,103,794
<PP&E>                                      23,055,436
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,416,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,667,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,913,427
<BONDS>                                        703,185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,311
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,798,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,667,732
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,740,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,490,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,556,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                   640,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            916,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   916,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.01











CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Davis, President of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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



















By:             /s/       Walter Davis





Name:                    Walter Davis


Title:                      President of Demeter Management LLC,


general partner of the registrant





Date:                      March 29, 2010
1

 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin, who as of

Feb. 14, 2013 has been named as the Acting Commissioner, is automatically substituted for Michael J.

Astrue as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02478-REB

LACY A. ESTES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.1

FINAL JUDGMENT

This Final Judgment is entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and in

accordance with the Order Reversing Disability Decision and Directing Award of

Benefits [#17] entered by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on March 25, 2013, which order is

incorporated herein by this reference.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the conclusion of the Commissioner through the Administrative Law

Judge that plaintiff was not disabled is REVERSED;

2. That JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of plaintiff against the Commissioner;

3. That the Commissioner is DIRECTED to award plaintiff benefits from her

alleged date of onset; and

Case 1:11-cv-02478-REB Document 18 Filed 03/27/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
4. That the plaintiff is AWARDED her costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1, and as permitted by 28

U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1).

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 27th day of March, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/Edward P. Butler 

Edward P. Butler

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02478-REB Document 18 Filed 03/27/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2