alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the amended Annual Report of Calypso Wireless, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Cheryl L. Dotson, CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Cheryl L. Dotson, CFODated: September 30, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Calypso Wireless, Inc. and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Capo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered October 12, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Hooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
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-Q of Intraware, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended August 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I Peter H. Jackson, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)        The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:    October 9, 2008

|/s/  PETER H. JACKSON
Peter H. JacksonChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Intraware, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer) | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 



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 Intraware, Inc. (the "Company") for the period
ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I
Wendy A. Nieto, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)        The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:    October 9, 2008

|/s/  WENDY A. NIETO
Wendy A. NietoChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Intraware, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer) | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit  23.1



                  CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 \Nos. 33-59061 and 33-78694) pertaining to the Immunex Corporation
Amended and Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan and Amended and Restated Director
Stock Option Plan of our report dated January 17, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Immunex Corporation included
in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                       Ernst & Young, LLP


Seattle, Washington
March 14, 1997


                                         123
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

JOHN PAUL YUKNAVICH,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 359 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
|Release Date: May 1, 2012Release dates |
Data Download Program (DDP) |
About |
Announcements
Historical Data
      Historical data tables for the H.3 statistical release are longer available on this webpage as of Tuesday, May 1, 2012. The data contained in the historical tables will continue to be available as preformatted data packages through the Data Download Program.

   A description of the methods for constructing break factors and
seasonal factors is available under "Annual review of break and seasonal factors"
on the Federal Reserve's website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/about.htm
Statistical releasesHome |
Economic research and dataAccessibility |
Contact UsLast update: May 1, 2012
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANCORP

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2005

CERTIFICATION

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

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Foothill Independent Bancorp
(the Company), hereby certifies that: (i) he Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 15, 2006



/s/ GEORGE E. LANGLEYGeorge E. LangleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### Connie Dispensers, Plaintiff, *v.*Delicate International Inc., et al., Defendants.

City Court of the City of New York, New York County,

January 29, 1957.

*Alvin Miller*for defendant Bokum appearing specially.

*McAvinue & Mintz*for plaintiff.

James E. Mulcahy, J.

The defendant Bokum appears specially herein for the purpose of vacating and setting aside the service of the summons which was personally served upon him in Chicago, Illinois. His counsel asserts that he is a resident of the State of Illinois and opposing counsel states that he is a resident of this State; no evidentiary facts have been presented to support one contention or the other; moreover, nothing has been shown to indicate that he is a domiciliary of this city. However, for the purpose of this motion and in the context of the underlying facts presented herein, these omissions are not of importance and are mentioned merely to show the background of the questions presented. The service can*1024not stand. It is somewhat surprising that neither side has referred to section 27 of the New York City Court Act which provides: ‘ ‘ All process and mandates of the court may be executed in any part of the city of New York.” In *American Historical*Soc. v. *Glenn*(248 N. Y. 445) the former provision of section 27 which provided that process of this court might be executed in any part of this State was struck down by the Court of Appeals as being unconstitutional.

The service is attempted to be upheld by reference to sections 235 and 232 of the Civil Practice Act, but this contention cannot be sustained. Section 232 of the Civil Practice Act is wholly inapplicable as the cause of action herein is one to recover a sum of money only, and no levy was made under a warrant of attachment (see subd. 3 of that section) and no order was granted as specified in subdivision 4 of that section. The case of *Hoffman*v. *M. Schwartz, Inc.,*(139 N. Y. S. 2d 14) is readily distinguishable on the ground that a warrant of attachment was obtained therein. As to the limited purpose and applicability of the new matter that was added to section 235 of the Civil Practice Act by the amendment effected by chapter 185 of the Laws of 1949 (see Fifteenth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1949, pp. 60-62, and authorities therein cited), I cannot conceive that anything contained in the latest amendment to section 235 of the Civil Practice Act was intended to, or that it could, derogate from the basic constitutional point decided in *American Historical Soc. v. Glenn (supra).*

The special appearance is sustained, the motion of the defendant Bokum is granted, and the service upon said defendant is vacated and set aside.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul W. Pence, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Registrant, 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.

/s/ Paul W. Pence, Jr.

Paul W. Pence, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2004

                                       18
**Exhibit23.1**

#### **CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (see File No. 333-17883, effective December31, 1996) of our report dated March 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP, Inc. and Subsidiaries includedin the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN REMINICK LLP

HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN REMINICK LLP

Melville,New York

March 29, 2007

 

----
#### Hoffman *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 25144

Decided January 23, 1935.)

*Mr. Benjamin E. Seibert,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James M. Howsare,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 22
Case 1:11-cv-02604-CMA-MJW Document 35 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                           This schedule contains summary financial  information
                           extracted from the financial statements of Obie Media
                           Corporation,  which  are  included  in its  quarterly
                           report on Form  10-QSB for the quarter  ended  August
                           31,  2000,  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by
                           reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                           305,266
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 10,706,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                     313,680
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15,347,896
<PP&E>                                        21,648,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,065,978
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                38,326,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11,279,814
<BONDS>                                        9,268,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                      16,908,476
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,590,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  38,326,106
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              32,900,386
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 24,143,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,346,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               792,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,549,439
<INCOME-TAX>                                     604,282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              945,157
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     945,157
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.16


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02442-WYD-MJW

JOEL HUGHES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DENVER POLICE OFFICER WESLEY KVASNICKA; and 

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Jointly and Severally,

Defendant(s).

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Discovery Sanctions for

Plaintiff’s Failure to Appear at the Independent Medical Examination and Failure to

Supplement Discovery Responses (docket no. 46) is GRANTED as follows. 

Plaintiff has confessed the portion of the subject motion requesting that this court

Order Plaintiff to pay Dr. Bazaz the sum of $687.50 for Plaintiff’s failure to appear for his

IME exam. See paragraph 2 in Plaintiff’s Response (docket no. 49). 

Plaintiff has provided supplemental discovery responses as outlined in Plaintiff’s

Response (docket no. 49). The discovery cut off date, however, was October 19, 2012. 

The Final Pretrial Conference is currently set for January 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The

dispositive motions deadline was November 21, 2012. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A)(I) through (vii) and (b)(2)(C), I

find that the appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s non-compliance (1) by not attending the

IME examination with Dr. Bazaz as agreed to by the parties, (2) by not providing, in the

past, timely medical releases as previously Ordered by this court, and (3) by Plaintiff’s

other refusals to comply with the discovery rules, is to strike Plaintiff’s personal injuries

and damages related thereto from consideration by the trier of fact. Plaintiff is not

permitted to seek and argue for personal injuries and damages related thereto at trial. I

do not find complete dismissal of this action is merited at this time as requested by

Defendants. 

Case 1:11-cv-02442-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 12/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

As a further sanction, Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable and necessary attorney

fees and costs incurred by Defendants in having to the file the subject motion (docket

no. 46). The parties are to forthwith meet and confer to see if they can agree upon the

amount of attorney fees and costs for the subject motion (docket no. 46). If the parties

can agree, then they shall file with the court their written Stipulation as to the amount of

attorney fees and costs by December 21, 2012. If the parties cannot agree, then

Defendants shall file their itemized affidavit for attorney fees and costs for the subject

motion (docket no. 46) on or before December 21, 2012. Response by Plaintiff to

Defendants’ itemized affidavit for attorney fees and costs shall be filed with the court on

or before December 31, 2012. If a Response is filed, then Defendants shall have up to

and including January 10, 2013, to file any Reply to Plaintiff’s Response. 

Date: December 12, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02442-WYD-MJW Document 50 Filed 12/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of William Meyers, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

December 11,1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard M. Maltz*of counsel *(Hal R. Lieberman,*attorney), for petitioner.

*William Meyers,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New *269York in March 1952 by the Second Judicial Department and, at all times pertinent to this matter, respondent has maintained an office within the First Judicial Department.

On March 8, 1988, a 14-count indictment was filed against respondent and a codefendant in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, charging them with engaging in a scheme to defraud and committing fraud in the sale of securities in violation of Penal Law § 190.65 and New York General Business Law § 352-c (5) and (6). On or about February 2, 1989, respondent pleaded guilty to five counts of concealment of material information in connection with the sale of securities in violation of General Business Law § 352-c (1) (a), a misdemeanor. As part of the plea bargain, respondent agreed to resign as a member of the Bar and as a CPA. He was then sentenced to a term of three years’ probation on each count, the sentences to run concurrently, and fined $500 on each count.

On or about June 23, 1989, respondent submitted his resignation. Respondent admitted his misdemeanor conviction and stated that his resignation was being rendered voluntarily and with full knowledge of the implications of his resignation. Respondent further stated that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits of such charges.

The Disciplinary Committee, after due consideration, recommends that the resignation be accepted and that the respondent be disbarred.

Accordingly, the motion to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys is granted, and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s resignation is accepted and filed, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.