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

                                  Certification
           (Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Robert W. DeCook, certify that:

1. This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Financial Services
Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Horizon
Financial Services Corporation.

Date: November 13, 2003


                                                            /s/ Robert W. DeCook
                                                            --------------------
                                                                Robert W. DeCook
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

I, Vicki Hladik, certify that:

1. This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Financial Services
Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Horizon
Financial Services Corporation.

Date: November 13, 2003


                                                                /s/ Vicki Hladik
                                                                ----------------
                                                                    Vicki Hladik
                                                       Treasurer and Comptroller


                                      -21-
#### WEST JEFFERSON MEDICAL CENTER MEDICAL STAFF, through Jonathan C. BORASKI, M.D., K. Barton Farris, M.D., Pablo J. Labadie, M.D., and David C. Treen, Jr., M.D. v. The STATE of Louisiana and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

No. 2012-CC-0153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, etc.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 590587; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 1718.

Granted and remanded.

WEIMER, J., would grant and docket.
Exhibit 23.1



             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated March 8, 2002, on the consolidated balance sheet
of WidePoint Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and the
related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows of WidePoint Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2001, included in
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission. We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.
333-55993).



                                                     /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 29, 2002
#### Anupam RAJVANSHI and Vasundhara Rajvanshi v. Dr. Jay P. JAIKISHEN, et al.

No. 2010-CC-2498.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Jaikishen, Jay P. et al.; Jay P. Jaikishen M.D. APMC; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 2010-0706; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 10-00962.

Denied.
#### Missouri Pac. R’y Co. v. A. A. Nicholson.

(No. 2972.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 168. *Carrier; common law liability of; charge of court upon this subject, held correct.*The trial court charged the jury as follows: “If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the defendant company received from the plaintiff the cattle mentioned in plaintiff’s petition, for the purpose of transportation from Denton to Chicago, and that the defendant failed to furnish suitable cars for the transportation of said cattle, or failed to transport the same within a reasonable time, and that by reason of such failure on the part of defendant, said cattle were injured, then you should find for the plaintiff such amount as you may believe he has been damaged by reason thereof, and the measure of damages would be the difference in the value of said cattle at their arrival in Chicago, and their value in Chicago, had they been transported with proper care, and in a reasonable time. Unless you find from the evidence that the cattle were delayed beyond the usual and ordinary time of shipment, or that said cattle were injured through the negligence of the defendant, in the care and management of the same, while in the defendant’s charge, then you should find for the defendant.” *Held,*that this charge was applicable to the pleadings and the evidence, and was substantially correct.

§ 169. *Bill of lading; need not be produced, when; must be produced, tuhen.*In an action against a common carrier, founded on the common law liability of such carrier, it is nob necessary to produce in evidence a bill of lading of the property alleged to have been lost or injured. If there was a special contract restricting the common law liability of the carrier, it devolved upon the carrier to allege and prove it. Where the suit is founded upon a bill of lading, then the bill of lading must be *148produced in evidence, or its non-production must be accounted for and its. substance proved as alleged. *[Ante,*§ 166.]

April 26, 1884.

§ 17 0. *Damages for delay on appeal.*Where there is no sufficient cause for an appeal, it will be considered that the appeal was taken for delay, and damages for such delay will be awarded by this court. [R. S. art. 1049; Sayles & Bassett’s Pr. § 1152.]

Affirmed with damages.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                              INFOSEEK CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Three Months Ended          Six Months Ended
                                                      June 30,                   June 30,
                                                --------------------        -------------------
                                                 1997          1996          1997        1996
                                                 ----          ----          ----        ----
<S>                                             <C>          <C>            <C>         <C>     
Net Loss                                        $(11,934)    $(4,723)       $(16,040)   $(8,290)

Weighted average common shares
outstanding during the period                    26,424        5,261          26,264      4,496

Shares related to SAB No. 55, 64
and 83                                               ---         ---             ---      6,802

Conversion of preferred stock not
included in shares related to SAB
No. 55, 64, and 83                                  ---        3,904             ---      6,242
                                                -------      -------        --------    -------

Total shares used in net loss per share          26,424        9,165          26,264     17,540

Net loss per share (Pro forma in 1996)          $ (0.45)     $ (0.52)        $ (0.61)   $ (0.47)
                                                ========     ========        ========   ========

</TABLE>
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Advanta Mortgage Corp. USA:

We have examined  management's  assertion  about Advanta  Mortgage  Corp.  USA's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS (USAP) and that Advanta  Mortgage Corp. USA had in effect  fidelity bond
coverage  in the  amount  of  $15  million  and  mortgage  contingent  liability
protection  coverage  in the  amount of $2  million as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1996 included in the accompanying management assertion.  Management
is responsible for Advanta  Mortgage Corp.  USA's  compliance with those minimum
servicing  standards and for maintaining  fidelity bond and mortgage  contingent
liability  protection  coverage  policies.  Our  responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance with the minimum
servicing  standards and  maintenance  of fidelity bond and mortgage  contingent
liability protection coverage policies based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Advanta  Mortgage  Corp.  USA's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal  determination  on Advanta  Mortgage Corp.  USA's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's assertion that Advanta Mortgage Corp. USA complied
with the  aforementioned  minimum servicing  standards and that Advanta Mortgage
Corp. USA had in effect  fidelity bond coverage in the amount of $15 million and
mortgage contingent liability protection coverage in the amount of $2 million as
of and for the year ended  December 31, 1996 is fairly  stated,  in all material
respects.



/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP



Philadelphia, PA
January 21, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1628 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1628

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the admission to 
  the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors who are the 
 spouses and children of United States permanent resident aliens, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2007

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the admission to 
  the United States of nonimmigrant students and visitors who are the 
 spouses and children of United States permanent resident aliens, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ``B'' AND ``F'' VISA NONIMMIGRANTS WHO 
              ARE SPOUSES OR CHILDREN OF UNITED STATES PERMANENT 
              RESIDENT ALIENS.

    Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) 
is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the subsection (t) added by section 
        1(b)(2) of Public Law 108-449 (118 Stat. 3469) as a subsection 
        (u); and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(v)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no alien--
            ``(A) who is--
                    ``(i) the spouse or child of an alien lawfully 
                admitted for permanent residence to the United States; 
                and
                    ``(ii) not eligible to enter the United States as 
                an immigrant except by reason of being such a spouse or 
                child; and
            ``(B) who seeks admission to the United States for purposes 
        of visiting the permanent resident spouse or parent or for 
        studying in the United States; and
            ``(C) who is otherwise qualified;
may be denied issuance of a visa, or may be denied admission to the 
United States, as a nonimmigrant alien described in section 
101(a)(15)(B) who is coming to the United States temporarily for 
pleasure or as a nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(F).
    ``(2) Whenever an alien described in paragraph (1) seeks admission 
to the United States as a nonimmigrant alien described in section 
101(a)(15)(B) who is coming temporarily for pleasure or as a 
nonimmigrant alien described in section 101(a)(15)(F), the fact that a 
petition has been filed on the alien's behalf for classification of the 
alien as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence shall not 
constitute evidence of the alien's intention to abandon his or her 
foreign residence.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     I, Philip Sean Lafleur, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of MakeMusic! Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuerand have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     Date: November 11, 2003 By: /s/ Philip Sean Lafleur    Chief Executive Officer
18
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                         [LETTERHEAD OF ERNST & YOUNG]


                        Report of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
York Financial Corp.


We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of York Financial Corp. and
subsidiaries as of June 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the
period ended June 30, 2000 (not presented separately herein). These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatements. An audits includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of York Financial
Corp. and subsidiaries at June 30, 2000, and the consolidated results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended
June 30, 2000, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


July 19, 2000
#### Robert W. DUCKETT, Appellant, v. William F. STEINER, Warden, Maryland House of Correction, Appellee.

No. 9332.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

April 28, 1964.

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Duckett appeals from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. That court accepted the detailed findings of fact made by a state j'udge after a two-day hearing in a state post-conviction proceeding. The petitioner’s claim that the prosecuting attorney had knowingly used perjured testimony was carefully considered in the state proceeding at which petitioner was represented by counsel and called a numher of witnesses. The claim was found to be without merit.

We agree with the District Court’s holding that the state post-conviction proceeding clearly met the tests set out in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). The petitioner received a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the same issue now being asserted in the federal courts, and his claim of perjured testimony was shown to be without substance. Under the circumstances a federal hearing is unnecessary because “the state-court trier of fact has after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts.” 372 U.S. at 312, 83 S.Ct. at 757.

Accordingly, no certificate of probable cause will issue and the docketed appeal will be dismissed as frivolous. Burgess v. Warden, 4 Cir., 284 F.2d 486 (1960). .

Affirmed.
#### Jenny MILES, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. CV-N-98-225-DWH(RAM).

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Nov. 25, 1998.

Robert E. Dickey, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff.

Scott A. Glogovac, Burton, Bartlett & Glo-govac, Reno, NV, for Defendant.

*ORDER*

HAGEN, District Judge.

Before the court are defendant’s motion (# 6) to dismiss or bifurcate and plaintiffs motion (# 9) to remand. They have been fully briefed.

*1247Where, as here, it is unclear from the complaint the amount of damages plaintiff seeks, defendant bears the burden of proving the jurisdictional amount. *Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,*980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir.1992). The notice of removal does this. Plaintiffs motion for remand argues that because defendant denies liability for as much as the jurisdictional amount the ease should be remanded unless defendant stipulates away that denial. Plaintiff asks too much. Diversity jurisdiction depends only on an amount in *controversy;*it is unnecessary for the parties to be in agreement on liability for that amount. The motion (# 9) for remand will be denied.

Nor will plaintiffs bad faith claim be dismissed as premature. *Pulley v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co.,*111 Nev. 856, 897 P.2d 1101 (1995) does not establish a rule that such claims can arise only after the underlying coverage claim has been resolved. In *Pulley,*the facts upon which the bad faith claim was based did not occur until after the coverage claim was resolved. This is obviously what the Nevada Supreme Court meant when it said, “the transaction giving rise to the bad faith tort action did not occur until after the first ease for benefits under the contract had been settled.” *Id.*at 859, 897 P.2d 1101. To substitute the verb “does” for “did” in that passage alters its meaning from a statement of operative fact to a rule of law. No such rule of law yet has been declared by the Nevada court. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss will be denied.

Defendant seeks bifurcation as an alternative. This reasonable request should be accommodated in a manner consistent with minimizing the cost of litigation to the parties and prudent use of this court’s meager time resources1. The parties will prepare both the coverage and the bad faith claims for trial. The coverage issues will then be tried and submitted to the jury. Next, if appropriate in light of the verdict on coverage, the bad faith issues will be tried to the same jury.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions (# s 6 and 9) to dismiss and remand are denied; the motion (# 6) for bifurcation is granted as set forth above.

1

. This district has four active judges. In 1997, the weighted filings per judgeship were 897, the highest of any district in the Ninth Circuit.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eric WILSON.

No. 2011-KK-2532.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 498-200; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1056.

Writ Granted. The ruling of the Court of Appeal is reversed. Considering the unusual facts in this case, especially that the State’s prime witness had to undergo emergency surgery and would risk her life in attempting to come to Louisiana to testify in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial. Therefore, the ruling of the trial court denying the double jeopardy motion is reinstated and the case is remanded to the *'*trial court for further proceedings.
#### PONTCHARTRAIN MATERIALS CORPORATION v. QUICK RECOVERY COATINGS SERVICES, INC. and Stolt Offshore, Inc. Quick Recovery Coating Systems, Inc. v. Stolt Offshore, Inc., Stolthaven New Orleans, L.L.C. and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd.

No. 2011-C-1104.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Quick Recovery Coating Systems Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Plaque-mines, 25th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 48-253, 50-580; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2010-CA-1476, 2010-CA-1477.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., would grant.
#### STATE ex rel. Terrell CASBY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0618.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Casby, Terrell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 07-5786; to the Court of APPeal> Fifth Circuit> Na 10KH-30-

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.

GUIDRY, J., recused.