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





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Calypso Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Cheryl L.
      Dotson, CFO 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, as amended; and





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







/s/
      Cheryl L. Dotson





Cheryl
      L.
      Dotson


CFO


Dated:
      August 24,
      2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Calypso Wireless, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
178 La. 1027

#### Succession of WENGERT.

No. 32660.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 29, 1934.

K. Y. Richard, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Theo Cotonio, Jr., and Theodore Cotonio, Sr., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

The testamentary executor of this estate has appealed from a judgment ordering him to pay to the widow of the testator $120, in three monthly payments of $40 each, on account of the legacies coming to her. The widow has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the amount in dispute is less than $2,000. The value of the estate, however, or the fund to be distributed by the executor, is $9,051.83.

According to section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution, this court has appellate jurisdiction in suits where a fund to be distributed, regardless of the amount therein claimed, exceeds $2,000, as well as in suits where the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000. And, in a succession or other concurso proceeding, the test of appellate jurisdiction is not the amount ordered paid out or distributed provisionally, but the whole amount -of the fund to be distributed. Succession of Johnson, 141 La. 842, 75 So. 743.

The decisions 'relied upon by counsel for the appellee are not appropriate, viz.: Kahn v. Kahn, 154 La. 729, 98 So. 167; Succession of Koppel, 171 La. 119, 129 So. 727, and Murff v. Ratcliff, 171 La. 419, 131 So. 194. In Kahn v. Kahn the fund to be distributed was only $173.29, and the only effect which the opposition or contest could have had would have been to increase the fund to $549.85. In the Succession of Koppel, the contest was over a fund of $156.50. There was no other fund remaining for distribution. Murff v. Ratcliff was a hypothecary action, based upon a judgment for only $231.50, and the ruling was that this court did not have jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that the contest depended upon the question whether a former owner of the property had a homestead exemption.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.9

                                 CONFIDENTIAL

February 8, 2000


[Officer]
GlobalSCAPE, Inc.

     Re:  GlobalSCAPE, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan

Dear [Officer]:

     On January 1, 1998 you and GlobalSCAPE, Inc. ("GlobalSCAPE") signed a
letter under which GlobalSCAPE granted you an option to purchase 291,429 shares
of GlobalSCAPE common stock for $0.10 (ten cents) per share with the option
vesting over three year period beginning January 1, 1998.

     As you know, GlobalSCAPE would like to offer shares of its common stock to
the public to raise money to finance its future growth. If completed, this
transaction will benefit you since it will create a market for your GlobalSCAPE
shares when you exercise your Option.

     We have to plan and budget carefully in order to complete all the steps
necessary to close the offering, and the steps we take depend on whether there
are any shareholders of GlobalSCAPE other than ATSI. If you were to exercise any
part of your Option during time leading up to the offering it would be difficult
for us to revise our plans and still close the offering within the time frame
that we believe is desirable. Therefore, to facilitate this offering,
GlobalSCAPE would like you to agree that you will not exercise your Option until
the offering is complete. We cannot guaranty [sic] that the offering will be
complete by a certain date, but we anticipate that it will be complete by August
31, 2000.

     If you agree not to exercise your option as described in this letter,
please sign below where indicated and return a signed copy of this letter to me.
If we have not completed the offering by August 31, 2000, or if we decide not to
proceed with the offering prior to that time, then you will be free to exercise
your option. Also, if your employment is terminated four months or more prior to
the completion of the offering, and you and the Board of Directors of
GlobalSCAPE have not agreed to extend the time that you have to exercise your
Option, then you will be free to exercise your option on the last day of the
four month period following the termination of your employment.

                                      Sincerely,



                                      Arthur L. Smith
                                      Chairman of the Board of Directors
<PAGE>

Agreed:


_______________________________
[Officer]
Date: ________________
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
  Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
  2005 (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
  indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company.

|Dated: August 22, 2005 | /s/ Lutz Klingmann                       
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                       | Lutz Klingmann                           
|                       | President and Principal Financial Officer

---
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10906 Summary Calendar

VAN LEE BREWER ET AL., Plaintiffs, VAN LEE BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus B. WILKINSON ET AL., Defantants, B. WILKINSON, Mail Room Clerk, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, CYNTHIA CALLAWAY, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:91-CV-143

-------------------- August 3, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * On February 26, 1996, Van Lee Brewer (TDCJ # 527494) filed a timely notice of appeal of a judgment in favor of the defendants following a jury trial of his civil rights complaint. Subsequently, a member of this court directed that in order toNo. 98-10906 -2- proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, Brewer must comply with the requirements of the Prison Litigation and Reform Act (PLRA). Concluding that Brewer had failed to comply with such order, the district court entered an order denying Brewer IFP status. The clerk of this court entered an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Brewer filed in the district court a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief of its judgment denying him IFP status. It is from the district court’s denial of such motion that Brewer now appeals. Brewer contends that the district court should have granted him Rule 60(b) relief for a myriad of reasons. He also argues that the PLRA did not apply to his appeal. Brewer’s argument that the PLRA is inapplicable in this case is without merit. See Strickland v. Rankin County Correctional Facility , 105 F.3d 972, 973-74 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, none of the various arguments advanced by Brewer establishes that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter. , 38 F.3d 10404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02468-RPM

PAUL GIVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NETJETS AVIATION, INC.,

NETJETS SALES, INC.,

BRUCE H. WHITE, and

RICARDO E. HELLEBUYCK, 

Defendants.

 

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

 

Pursuant to the Stipulation to Dismiss [19] filed June 27, 2012, it is

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own fees

and costs.

Dated: June 27th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02468-RPM Document 20 Filed 06/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice

Criminal Case No.: 11-po-00042-GJR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRGINIA C. SCHLAX,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE GUDRUN J. RICE

DATED: October 17, 2011

Arraignment and Discovery Conference set for November 29, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.

is VACATED and rescheduled to December 01, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          139930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3029178
<ALLOWANCES>                                    267000
<INVENTORY>                                    3883503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7267252
<PP&E>                                         5974873
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3741873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9820951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2627346
<BONDS>                                        4464549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         37000
<OTHER-SE>                                     2692056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9820951
<SALES>                                        5518866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5518866
<CGS>                                          4017549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4017549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1547540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               95470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (141693)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (52426)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (89267)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (89267)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(0.02)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

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




         I, Matthew  Richman,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Front Porch  Digital Inc.  for the quarter  ended March
31, 2003 fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial
condition and results of operations of Front Porch Digital Inc.

May 27, 2003                          By:
                                           /s/  Matthew Richman
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Matthew Richman
                                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER

----------------

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Front Porch Digital Inc. and will be retained by Front Porch Digital
Inc. and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Common or its staff upon
request.
#### GEORGE DORION, PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF v. FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided November 20, 1947.

Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenfeld.

For the petitioner-plaintiff, *Isaac W. Seiler*and *Aaron Gordon.*

For the respondent-defendant, *Stryker, Tams & Horner (William L. Dill, Jr.,*and *Andrew Lawrie).*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The accident occurred shortly after 4:00 p. m. on January 17th, 1944. The petitioner was knocked down on the employer’s premises by workmen leaving after they had completed their shift. He suffered an injury to his arm and to his shin for which he had first aid. Within 24 hours thereafter, definite symptoms of paralysis were noticed, resulting in complete disablement after long hospitalization.

The workman was 41 years of age at the time of the accident and had enjoyed surprisingly good health, and there was nothing about his pre-existing physical condition which could have accounted for the paralysis.

Before the hearing, the petition was amended so as to include head injuries, as well as arm and leg injuries at the time of the fall.

*303The Commissioner decided in favor of the petitioner and this finding was reversed in the Court of Common Pleas.

It is conceded that the only question in this case is whether the petitioner struck his head when he fell, the medical testimony being as nearly as possible in such cases in agreement that such a blow would be necessary to account for the paralysis. Petitioner said he fell and struck his head; his wife corroborated him in testifying that there was a swelling on the head when he came home after work. Much point is made that when he reported to first aid he did not mention his head injury; nor did he, when he was hospitalized, nor at any time until long after the accident. The Commissioner was satisfied that obvious speech difficulties accounted for his difficulty in making the facts known. When he reported to first aid, he may have thought nothing of it, the injuries of the hand and leg being much more obvious at that time.

We find the proofs support a finding of a head injury. At least, there is positive proof that there was such and there is merely negative proof to the contrary, *i.*e., no mention thereof. We think the probabilities support the findings of the Bureau and do not support the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.

It is dear, in this case, that the paralysis was not due to any physical condition which could have caused the injury; hence, the only inference to be drawn from the proofs is that the result was due to a blow to the head suffered in the fall, and we so find.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and the judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau is affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>

SYNBIOTICS CORPORATION
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                                    ------------
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                         NINE MONTHS
                                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,        ENDED
                                                             ------------------------    DECEMBER 31,
                                                                 1996         1995          1994
                                                             -----------   ----------   -------------
<S>                                                           <C>           <C>          <C>
PRIMARY EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:

Net income (loss) per statement of operations                 $9,278,000   $  501,000    $(1,058,000)
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                  6,308,000    5,832,000      5,803,000
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========

Primary net income (loss) per share                           $     1.47   $      .09    $      (.18)
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE:/(1)/

Net income (loss) per statement of operations                 $9,278,000   $  501,000    $(1,058,000)
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========

Reconciliation of weighted average number of shares per
 primary computation above, to amount used for fully
 diluted computation:

Weighted average number of shares outstanding, per
 primary computation                                           6,308,000    5,832,000      5,803,000

Add - effect of outstanding options and warrants (as
 determined by the application of the treasury method)            20,000        5,000         27,000
                                                              ----------   ----------    -----------
Weighted average number of shares, as adjusted                 6,328,000    5,837,000      5,830,000
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========
Fully diluted net income (loss) per share                     $     1.47   $      .09    $      (.18)
                                                              ==========   ==========    ===========


</TABLE>
/(1)/ This calculation is submitted, for the nine months ended December 31,
 1994, in accordance with Regulation S-B Item 601(b)(11) although it is contrary
 to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion No. 15 because it produces an anti-dilutive
 result.


                                      -1-
November 4, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.

in Courtroom A-502, 

Fifth Floor, 

Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 

901 19th Street,

Denver, Colorado 80294

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW

JOHN STAUFFER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

KAREN E. HAYES, D.O.;

A WOMAN’S PLACE OF FORT COLLINS, P.L.L.P.;

PETER DUSBABEK;

TODD VRIESMAN;

MONTGOMERY, KOLODNY, AMATUZIO & DUSBABEK, L.L.P.;

J. BRADFORD MARCH III; and

MARCH, OLIVE & PHARRIS, L.L.P.,

Defendant(s).

ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE 

FOR 

PRO SE PLAINTIFF(S)

The above-captioned case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Watanabe pursuant to the Order of Reference to United States Magistrate Judge,

entered by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on September 14, 2011.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a Status Conference shall be held on:

Absent exceptional circumstances, no request for rescheduling any

appearance in this court will be entertained unless a written request is made FIVE

(5) business days in advance of the date of appearance.

Case 1:11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW Document 3 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
THE PLAINTIFF(S) SHALL NOTIFY ALL PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT ENTERED

AN APPEARANCE OF THE DATE AND TIME FOR THE STATUS CONFERENCE.

FURTHER, it is ORDERED that plaintiff(s) shall forthwith serve each defendant

with service of process consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.

FURTHER, it is ORDERED that at the Status Conference the pro se Plaintiff(s)

shall:

1. Provide written proof of service of process on ALL defendants or show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for lack of service of process and/or failure to

prosecute;

2. Inform this court on whether you intend to retain legal counsel. If you intend

to retain legal counsel, then you shall be prepared to inform this court, on the record, of

what efforts you have made to retain legal counsel; and, 

3. Become familiar with the following Rules: (a) the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, (b) the United States District Court for the District of Colorado Local Rules of

Practice, and (c) the Federal Rules of Evidence. These sets of rules shall apply in this

case.

Please remember that everyone seeking entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United

States Courthouse will be required to show valid photo identification. See

D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.2B. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in denial of

entry into the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse.

Done and signed this 4th day of October, 2011

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael J. Watanabe

MICHAEL J. WATANABE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02389-WYD-MJW Document 3 Filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2