alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32A

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C, § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
WidePoint Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007
( the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ STEVE L. KOMAR  Steve L.
KomarChief Executive Officer

/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBIN  James T.
McCubbinChief Financial Officer

Date: April 29, 2008
760 A.2d 846

#### In the Matter of Pamela Corille NELSON. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 63 DB 2000.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 2, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2000, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated August 31, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that PAMELA CORILLE NELSON, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

April 15, 2002


To the Securities and Exchange Commission:

Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") represented to Marex, Inc. that its audit for
the year ended December 31, 2001 was subject to Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards and that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel
working on the audit, availability of national office consultation and
availability of personnel at affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant
portions of the audit.

Very truly yours,

Marex, Inc.
#### Joshua B. WHITAKER, Petitioner, v. Ashley MERKISON, Respondent.

No. 1D11-3721.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 23, 2011.

Joshua B. Whitaker, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. ■

DENIED. *See Marquez v. State,*11 So.3d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          19,401
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                       789
<INVENTORY>                                     17,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,301
<PP&E>                                         222,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,088
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           24,207
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19,120)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               322,013
<CGS>                                          245,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  309,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,430
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,650
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,650
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: February 27, 2006
    
    /s/ Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Eugene B. Shepherd, Jr.Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130572 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130572 COA: 266905 Kent CC: 03-001516-FC RYAN RAY PARRISH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 3, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE THREE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,426
<PP&E>                                          18,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,293
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,222
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,829
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,798
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3
                     [SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 1 LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 26, 1998

First Union National Bank
230 South Tryon Street, 9th Floor
Charlotte, NC  28288
Attn: Pablo DeLaCanal

MBIA Insurance Corporation
113 King Street
Armonk, NY  10504
Attn: Insured Portfolio Management (IPM-SF)
      (Sequoia Mortgage Trust 1/Collateralized
       Mortgage Bonds, Class A-1 and Class A-2)


                          RE:     Sequoia Mortgage Trust 1; Annual Compliance
                                  Certificate

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Indenture with respect to Sequoia
Mortgage Trust 1 (the "Issuer"), the undersigned officer of Sequoia Mortgage
Funding Corporation on behalf of the Issuer certifies that:

         1.      a review of the fulfillment of the Issuer of its obligations
                 under the Indenture during the year ended December 31, 1997,
                 has been made under the undersigned's supervision; and

         2.      To the best of the undersigned's knowledge following
                 reasonable inquiry, the Issuer has fulfilled all of its
                 obligations under the Indenture throughout such year, and no
                 known Default has occurred.

                                  Very truly yours

                                  SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 1

                                  By: SEQUOIA MORTGAGE FUNDING CORPORATION
                                        as Depositor


                                  By: /s/ Vickie L. Rath
                                      Vickie L. Rath
                                      Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
#### Ex parte Richard PRESLEY and Joy Presley. (In re Richard Presley and Joy Presley v. B.I.C. Construction, Inc., Brandon Grant, and Michael Roberts).

1081764.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 10, 2010.

John F. Whitaker and Douglas H. Bryant of Whitaker, Mudd, Simms, Luke & Wells, LLC, Birmingham, for petitioners.

Robert B. Stewart and A. Joe Peddy of Smith, Spires *&*Peddy, P.C., Birmingham, for respondents.

MURDOCK, Justice.

The writ of certiorari is quashed.

In quashing the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil *628Appeals’ opinion. *Horsley v. Horsley,*291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1978).

WRIT QUASHED.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, STUART, and BOLIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10QSB for
first quarter 1999 and is qualified in it's entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-1999
<CASH>                                         210,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     68,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,259
<PP&E>                                          47,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  303,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,317
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     298,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   303,737
<SALES>                                          1,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,804
<CGS>                                              228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,471
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,247)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,247)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.002)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1
 
 Subsidiaries of Summit Properties Partnership, L.P.
   
 Name of Subsidiary
State of OrganizationSummit Management Company
MarylandSummit Apartment Builders, Inc.
FloridaHome Ownership Made Easy, LLC
DelawareStony Point/Summit, LLC
North CarolinaSummit/Belmont, LLC
North CarolinaHenderson/McGuire, LLC
North CarolinaMcGregor/McGuire, LLC
North CarolinaPortofino Place, Ltd.
FloridaFoxcroft East Associates
North CarolinaSummit Southwest I, L.P.
DelawareSummit Valley Brook, LLC
DelawareSummit Shiloh, LLC
GeorgiaSummit Sweetwater, LLC
GeorgiaSummit Grandview, LLC
North CarolinaSummit Grand Parc, LLC
DelawareSummit Roosevelt, LLC
DelawarePAPEC Silo Creek, LLC
DelawareSummit Brickellview, LLC
DelawareSZF, LLC
DelawareCoral Way, LLC
DelawareSummit Russett, LLC
Delaware
#### STATE ex rel. Lonnie E. LAURENT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-1816.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Laurent, Lonnie E.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 308671; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0759.

Denied.
#### KNECHT PROPERTIES, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. Germano CARREIRA, Appellee.

No. 11-2797.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 27, 2012.

Knecht & Knecht, PA, and Harold C. Knecht, Jr., for appellant.

Germano Carreira, in proper person.

Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and EMAS, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Knecht Properties, LLC, the plaintiff below (“Knecht”), appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Knecht served Germano Carreira, the defendant below, with a settlement proposal in the amount of $40,000, which Carreira did not accept. Ultimately, Knecht obtained a final judgment in its favor in the amount of $57,500. We reverse the denial of Knecht’s motion for attorney’s fees because the record before us1 reflects that: (1) the judgment obtained by Knecht was at least twenty-five percent greater than the amount offered in the settlement proposal; (2) Knecht’s settlement proposal, on its face, complied with the requirements of section 768.79 and rule 1.442; and (3) in its written order,2 the trial court made no determination that Knecht’s offer was not made in good faith.

Reversed.

1

. The appellee has not filed a brief, statement of facts, or supplement to the record submitted by the appellant.

2

. We have not been provided with a transcript of any proceedings, and the appellee has not responded to the appellant’s assertions.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THE BINKLEY COMPANY, etc., et al.

No. 16418.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1960.

Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Charles H. Spoehrer and William F. Guffey, St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National Labor Relations Board enforced, on petition for enforcement and stipulation filed with Board.
No. 12,172.

#### Ex Parte Kendall et al.

Criminal *Law.*— Murder.—Admission *to Bail. - Habeas Corpus.*— Supreme *Court.*— Practice.—In a proceeding by *babeas corpus*by a party indicted .for murder to be admitted to bail, the Supreme Court, upon appeal by the petitioner, will examine and pass upon the evidence.

*Same.*— Burden *of Proof.*— An indictment for murder implies primet *facie*that the accused has no right to bail, and the burden is upon him to show that the proof of his guilt is not evident, and that the presumption of his guilt is not strong.

From the Dubois Circuit Court.

*W. A. Traylor, W. S. Hunter*and *C. H. Mason,*for appellants.

*F. T. Hard,*Attorney General, *J. L. Bretz,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *O. A. Trippet,*for the State.

*600Filed March 14, 1885.

Zollars, C. J.

:Being charged in an indictment with murder in the first degree, appellants were committed and are held in jail. By a proceeding in *habeas corpus,*instituted in the court below, they sought to be admitted to bail. Upon the hearing this was refused, and they were remanded into custody. They appeal. The case is before us upon the evidence, and it is our duty, in a case of this kind, to examine and pass upon it. *Ex Parte Heffren,*27 Ind. 87; *Ex Parte Sutherlin,*56 Ind. *595; Ex Parte Walton,*79 Ind. 600.

An indictment for murder duly returned implies *prima facie*that the parties indicted have no right to bail. *Ex Parte Jones,*55 Ind. 176. The burden is upon appellants to show that the proof of their 'guilt is not evident, and that the presumption of their guilt is not strong. *Ex Parte Jones, supra; Ex Parte Heffren, supra.*

Following the oral testimony of the witnesses, there is in the bill of exceptions a statement by the prosecuting attorney that one of the State’s witnesses was absent, and also a statement as to what the testimony of the witness Avould be if present. Without establishing any rule to be followed generally in cases of this character, Ave have, for the purposes of this case, considered Avhat the 'absent wi tness might testify to, as stated by the prosecuting attorney, in connection Avith the other testimony upon the hearing. Thus considering it, and all the testimony upon the hearing, and applying the above rules to the case, Ave are of the opinion that appellants should have been admitted to bail.

It is not necessary for us to extend this opinion by setting out the evidence. We know of no good purpose that will be subserved by doing so. Inasmuch as the parties are yet to be tried upon the merits of the case, it setems more proper that the evidence should not be set out.

The judgment is reversed, with instructions to the court below to admit appellants to reasonable bail.
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

I, David A. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended January 2, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) 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 that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Smith                  
|David A. Smith                      
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|February 11, 2009
#### Laura NEVES, individually and as the natural guardian and next friend of Minor Child Neves 1 and Minor Child Neves 2, Appellant, v. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Brett Barfield, Alex Gonzalez, Julie Dunham, Salvatore Frieri, Michael Moecker & Associates, Inc., Markwood Investments, Ltd., and Golden Dawn Corporation, Appellees.

No. 3D10-2403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 28, 2011.

Michael I. Rose, Miami; Bruce S. Ro-gow and Cynthia E. Gunther, Ft. Lauder-dale, for appellant.

Podhurst Orseck, Stephen F. Rosenthal, Miami, and Peter Prieto, for appellees Holland & Knight, LLP, Brett Barfield, Alex Gonzalez, Miami and Julie Dunham; Avila Rodriguez Hernandez Mena & Ferri, LLP and Wilfredo A. Rodriguez, Miami, and Juan Carlos Sanchez for appellees Salvatore Frieri, Markwood Investments, Ltd., and Golden Dawn Corporation.

Before WELLS, C.J., and RAMIREZ and EMAS, JJ.

WELLS, Chief Judge.

Affirmed. *See Levin v. Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v.**1122*U.S. Fire Ins. Co.,*639 So.2d 606, 608 (Fla.1994).
#### STATE ex rel. John R. CRUMHOLT v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1049.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

In re Crumholt, John R.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 431085; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0323.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Chrishon M. ARCHIELD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

*973In re Archield, Chrishon M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. CR598-08; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 09-1116.

Denied.
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-152855, 333-149174, 333-127083, 333-121462, 333-92148, 333-45444, 333-33536, 333-89547, 333-77471, 333-70439, and 333-62791) of Eclipsys Corporation of our report dated February 24, 2009 relating to thefinancial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 24, 2009
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew HAWKINS.

No. 2010-KK-2483.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Hawkins, Andrew; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedí*472al Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 496-206; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1313.

Denied.
#### John BRITTON, Peggy Britton, Anthony and Tiffany Bourgeois, individually and on behalf of Dallin Bourgeois v. Kenneth VALLONE, Omega Natchiq, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Lexington Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 2011-CC-0720.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Department of Transportation and Development; State of Louisiana; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 28rd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 96,208; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2110.

Denied. See *Burnett v. James Construction Group,*10-2608 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 482, and *Whitley v. State of Louisiana,*11-0040 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d. 470.