alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-K"), I David D. Hillard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Form 10-K 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-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated:  March 20, 2003

                                            /s/ David D. Hillard
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        David D. Hillard
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fisher Communications, Inc., and will be retained by Fisher
Communications, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Carl J. PELLEGRIN.

No. 2010-KO-2308.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Pellegrin, Carl J.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 464,660; to *332the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 1010 KA 0286.

Denied.
Compensation of Directors



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 For Service on the Board of Directors of Esterline
Technologies Corporation 
 Effective Fiscal Year 2008 
  

				
	 Compensation Paid to Non-Employee Directors
	  		
	   Annual retainer
	  	$	30,000
	   Attendance (in person) at Board meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	1,500
	   Attendance (by phone) at Board meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	750
	   Annual issuance of fully-paid Common Stock
	  	$	60,000
		
	 Compensation for Attendance at Committee Meetings (in person or by telephone)
	  		
	   Attendance (in person) at Committee meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	1,500
	   Attendance (by phone) at Committee meeting (per meeting fee)
	  	$	750
		
	 Additional Compensation for Committee Chairpersons
	  		
	   Audit Committee
	  	$	        11,250
	   All Other Committees
	  	$	5,000
		
	 Additional Compensation for the Lead Independent Director
	  	$	21,250
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1558

GENE H. RHODES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, Secretary of Commerce,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00711-TSE)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 28, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michele S. Bellizaire, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck

Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Ralph Andrew Price Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gene H. Rhodes appeals from the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his

complaint alleging age discrimination. We have reviewed the record

included on appeal and the parties’ briefs and have found no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Rhodes v. Gutierrez, No. 1:06-cv-00711-TSE

(E.D. Va. filed May 11, 2007; entered May 16, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF VERSATA, INC.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

REGARDING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2003



Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Alan Baratz, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Versata, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), do hereby
certify that:



1. The Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2. Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    ALAN
BARATZAlan Baratz Director, Chief Executive Officer and President




Date: January 29, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1999 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>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,211
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     51,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          80,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 198,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,935
<BONDS>                                            472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           293
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   198,916
<SALES>                                          5,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,064
<CGS>                                            3,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (47)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,864)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,864)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
* The HONORABLE JOHN B. JONES, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-4115

___________ City of Hastings, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. River Falls Golf Club, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 16, 1999 Filed: July 26, 1999

___________ Before LOKEN and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and JONES, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. In October 1996, a Minnesota resident headed home after a round of golf and some drinks at the River Falls Golf Club in western Wisconsin, near the Minnesota border. After entering Minnesota, the golfer’s car crossed the median and struck the car of a Wisconsin resident employed by the City of Hastings, Minnesota. The City employee died, and the City paid his widow $875,000 in underinsured motorist benefits, taking an assignment of her claims against the Golf Club. The City then sued1 The HONORABLE HARRY H. MacLAUGHLIN, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota. -2- the Golf Club in a Minnesota state court, alleging that it negligently served alcoholic bev erages to an obviously intoxicated golfer. The Golf Club removed the diversity action. The district court, 1 applying Wisconsin law, dismissed the complaint. The City appeals. Its appeal turns on a choice of law issue.
Under Wisconsin law, a liquor vendor is immune from civil liability unless liquor was served to a minor. See Wis. Stat. § 125.035(2). In Blamey v. Brown , 270 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. 1978), cert. denied , 444 U.S. 1070 (1980), the Minnesota Supreme Court held a Wisconsin liquor vendor liable for negligence when an intoxicated Minnesotan purchased liquor in Wisconsin and caused an auto accident in Minnesota. Blamey has been questioned in more recent Minnesota cases, and Wisconsin courts may refuse to enforce Minnesota judgments under Blamey

. See Hennes v. Loch Ness Bar , 344 N.W.2d 205 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983)

. But the district court concluded that “no Minnesota court has questioned Blamey ’s broad holding” that Minnesota law permits a common law negligence action against an out-of-state liquor vendor. In deciding whether to apply Wisconsin law or this aspect of Minnesota law, the district court applied the fivefactor test that Minnesota courts use to resolve a choice of law issue when the law at issue is substantive. See Milkovich v. Saari , 203 N.W.2d 408, 412 (Minn. 1973). On appeal, the City reviews the five factors and urges a contrary result. After careful review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough Order dated November 6, 1998. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Spurgeon CONDOLL.

No. 2011-KO-0455.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Condolí, Spurgeon; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 490-991; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-KA-0623.

Denied.
#### Timothy E. BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 16, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rose M. Levering, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Any error was harmless. *See Blanton v. State,*978 So.2d 149 (Fla.2008).

ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Point Therapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three month period ended March31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results ofoperations of Point.

 

Dated: May 10, 2005

 
|   | /s/    DONALD R. KIEPERT, JR.                                              |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **   Donald  R. Kiepert, Jr.      Chief Executive Officer** |

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Point Therapeutics, Inc. (“Point”) for the three month period ended March 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results ofoperations of Point.

 

Dated: May 10, 2005

 
|   | /s/    RICHARD N. SMALL                                  |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **  Richard  N. Small     Chief Financial Officer** |

 

Asigned original of these written statements required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by PointTherapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
#### J.U. and B.U., Prospective Adoptive Parents, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D11-3354.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 12, 2011.

Randall A. Werre of Werre & Fitzgerald, P.A., Milton, for Appellants.

Ward L. Metzger, General Counsel, Florida Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Kelley Schaeffer, Guardian Ad Litem Program, Tavares.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See C.M. v. Dep't of Children & Families,*981 So.2d 1272, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that in termination of parental rights proceeding, individuals who “were not parties to the proceedings below,” lack standing to bring an appeal). *See also D.M. v. State, Dep't of Children & Family Servs.,*980 So.2d 498, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that “participant” who was not a “party” lacked standing to bring appeal).

WOLF, LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.
#### Chentee KEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-3035.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 2011.

Rehearing Denied March 3, 2011.

Chentee Key, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Fulcher v. State,*766. So.2d 243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     TRIBUTE TO FREDERICK DOUGLASS

                                 ______

                           HON. CHAKA FATTAH

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, recognizing Frederick Douglass in the 
centennial year of his death is an opportunity for the Nation to 
embrace its traditional American values of education, self-reliance, 
and public service through the life of this American patriot.
  As biographer and author, Frederick Douglass wrote about his triumph 
over chattel slavery 150 years ago, and his story has become a reminder 
of the essential role of education in our democracy. As a journalist, 
he founded The North Star in 1847 and became an articulate witness for 
the indivisibility of freedom and citizenship for the slave and for the 
idea and image of freedom in America. As a public servant, Frederick 
Douglass advised Presidents from Lincoln to Harrison, ending his 
distinguished public career as Minister to the Dominican Republic in 
1871 and to Haiti in 1889.
  On February 1, 1895, Mr. Douglass gave his last public lecture at 
West Chester University of Pennsylvania. The University has honored 
this champion of freedom with a 2-year program and has helped to lead 
the Nation in commemorating his life. Frederick Douglass voiced hope 
and confidence in America during some of the most anxious moments in 
the Nation's history.
  Our recognition of the life of Frederick Douglass is a testimony to 
his enduring faith that this Nation and all of its people will remain 
worthy of and committed to the highest principles of freedom and 
justice for all.

                          ____________________
```
583 A.2d 330

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LARRY GOODING.

February 27, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                         VARI-LITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
          CALCULATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE*
                       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                1997        1996        1995
                                                                             ----------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                          <C>         <C>         <C>
Net earnings...............................................................  $    4,329  $    3,119  $    4,714
Weighted average number of shares outstanding..............................   5,799,327   5,813,252   5,699,431
Dilutive effect of stock warrants after application of treasury stock
  method...................................................................      19,472      98,731     114,583
Shares used in calculating primary net earnings per share..................   5,818,799   5,911,983   5,814,014
Net earnings per share.....................................................  $     0.74  $     0.53  $     0.81
</TABLE>
 
------------------------
 
* Fully diluted earnings per share are identical to primary earnings per share.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,890
<PP&E>                                          85,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,519
<SALES>                                          9,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,821
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     69
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,117)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,117)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to Consulting Agreement between SeraCare and Sam Anderson



 Exhibit 10.13.1 
 Amendment to Consulting Agreement between SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. and Sam Anderson dated December 8, 2003 
  
  
 AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment to Consulting Agreement (this “Amendment”) is
entered into as of December 8, 2003, by and between SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”) and Sam Anderson (“Consultant”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant are parties to that certain Consulting Agreement, dated April 15, 2002 (the
“Consulting Agreement”); 
  
 WHEREAS, it has come to the
attention of the parties that Article III of the Consulting Agreement erroneously describes the economic arrangement between the parties for the total compensation to be paid by the Company to Consultant for consulting services under the Agreement,
in that the compensation described in Article III is inclusive of the $14,000 annual cash compensation to be paid to Consultant in his capacity as a director of the Company for board services (an amount that is identical to the cash compensation
paid to all non-employee directors of the Company for their board service). 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Consulting Agreement to correct this error and properly reflect the economic relationship between the parties. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows: 
  
 1. Amendment to Consulting Agreement. Article
III of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “III. COMPENSATION. 
  
 A. The Company will pay to Consultant an annual consulting fee of $56,000.00, payable monthly at the rate of $4,666.66 per month. Consultant shall also be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with his efforts on behalf of the
Company, provided however that all such costs shall be approved in advance by the Company.” 
  
 2. Ratification of Consulting Agreement. The Consulting Agreement, as modified by this Amendment, is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties
in all respects. 
  
 3. Governing Law. The validity,
meaning and effect of this Amendment shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be performed in that state. 
  
 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and
delivered shall be deemed to be an original for all purposes, but all such counterparts shall constitute but one in the same instrument. 
  
 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered
as of the date set forth above. 
  
 COMPANY: 
  

	SERACARE LIFE SCIENCES, INC.	  	 	 	 
			
	 /s/    MICHAEL F. CROWLEY
II        

 Michael F. Crowley II
	  	 Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
	 	December 8, 2003
			
	CONSULTANT:	  	 	 	 
			
	 /s/    SAMUEL
ANDERSON        

 Samuel
Anderson
	  	Consultant	 	December 8, 2003

  

 2