alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.2**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

To the Board of Directors of MF Global SifySecurities India Private Limited

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333 – 165248) of Sify Technologies Limited of our report datedJuly 30, 2012 with respect to the consolidated statement of balance sheet of MF Global Sify Securities India Private Limited andits subsidiaries at March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 and the related consolidated income statement, consolidated statement ofcomprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flow for the each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 2012 whichreport appear in Sify Technologies Limited’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2012.

 

/s/ ASA & Associates

ASA & Associates

**Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

Firm Registration No. 009571N

Mumbai, India

July 30,2012
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 15, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Everett F. Jefferson,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| July 17,  2003 |                                   |
|----------------|----------------------------------------|
|           | /s/ Everett  F. Jefferson              |   |
|           | Everett F.  Jefferson                  |
|           | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 15, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

ALVIN PARKER,

Movant.

No. 10-6047

ORDER

Before TACHA, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Alvin Parker moves for authorization to file a second or successive habeas

corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks authorization to present one

claim: his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the State deceived

the jury by knowingly allowing his accomplice, Glenn Briggs, to testify falsely. 

At trial, Mr. Briggs testified that the prosecutor reduced the charge against him in

exchange for his testimony against Mr. Parker. Eighteen years later, at

Mr. Parker’s January 2008 parole hearing, the prosecutor told the parole board

that there had been no deal with Mr. Briggs in exchange for his testimony. 

Mr. Parker provides a January 2008 newspaper article indicating that the

prosecutor represented to the parole board that no deal had been made. He

maintains that this is new evidence sufficient to satisfy the requirements for

authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B), (3)(C). 

Appellate Case: 10-6047 Document: 01018384474 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

Mr. Parker, however, raised the identical claim, supported by the same

newspaper article, in a prior motion for authorization. We denied authorization

because he failed to make a prima facie showing that his alleged new evidence

was sufficient to establish that no reasonable factfinder would have found him

guilty of second degree murder, as § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) requires. See In re Parker,

No. 08-6089 (10th Cir. May 21, 2008). 

Because Mr. Parker presented his claim previously, he does not have the

requisite new evidence required for authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B). 

We therefore DENY the motion for authorization. This denial of authorization is

not appealable and “shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a

writ of certiorari.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(E). 

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-6047 Document: 01018384474 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Page: 2
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2111

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 

State of New York. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the State of New York.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

4 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

5 PROGRAM IN NEW YORK. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860C–1(b) of the Social 

7 Security Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Pre8 scription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2

•S 2111 IS 

1 2003 (Public Law 108–173), is amended by adding at the 

2 end the following: 

3 ‘‘(3) NO CCA AREAS WITHIN NEW YORK.—A 

4 CCA area shall not include an MSA any portion of 

5 which is within the State of New York.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact8 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

9 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173).

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

I, Mark Emerson,  Principal Executive Officer of English Language Learning and
Instruction System, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date:    March 26, 2004

/s/ Mark Emerson
- ----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas James HAND, III, DefendantAppellant.

No. 72-2277.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 3, 1973.

Oliver J. Latour, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

C. S. White-Spunner, Jr., U. S. Atty., Irwin W. Coleman, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal from conviction on count two of a three count indictment under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 for fraud by interstate telephone we find no reversible error as charged in (i) the court’s handling of count three on which a judgment of acquittal was ordered during the Government’s case, (ii) restrictions on cross-examination of the principal Government witness and (iii) admission of testimony for impeachment using questions which were prompted by Appellant’s deposition in an earlier related civil suit.

With respect to Defendant’s allegation (iv), the charge that an unqualified juror was permitted to serve, the record leaves us in a state of complete uncertainty largely because the trial court declined to permit, or make, a factual inquiry into the allegation. Consequently, we remand to the District Court so that an appropriate factual inquiry will be made as to whether the juror at the time he sat was able to read, write and understand the English language as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1861 (2).1

*163c the trial court finds in the affirmathe conviction stands affirmed.2 the trial court finds in the negative, n in the exercise of our supervisory wer, *see*Rabinowitz v. United States, 5 r., 1966, 366 F.2d 34, 54, 55, 60 *(en*,nc) we direct that the conviction be versed for a new trial.

Remanded with directions.

1

. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1861:

> Any citizen of the United States who has attained the age of twenty-one years and who has resided for a period of one year within the judicial district, is competent to serve as a grand or petit juror unless — •

> *163(1) He has been convicted in a State or Federal court of record of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and his civil rights have not been restored by pardon or amnesty.

> (2) He is unable to read, write, speak, and understand the English' language.

> (3) He is incapable, by reason of mental or physical infirmities to render efficient jury service.

2

. To avoid any question of appealability or denial of an appeal, an affirmative finding, if made by the trial court, will be open to review by this panel on supplemental briefs as a part of the instant, appeal, No. 72-2277. Cf., United States v. Blair, 5 Cir., 1972, 470 F.2d 331.
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 on Form 10-Q of WNC  California
Housing  Tax  Credits  III,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
December 31, 2005 as  filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I, Thomas J. Riha,
Chief  Financial  Officer  of WNC &  Associates,  Inc.,  general  partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that such  provisions  require the filing of an opinion of registiered
          public  accountants to accompany the  Partnership's  annual  financial
          statements; and

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




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 17, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7998

JAMES LOUIS LEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PATRICK GURNEY, Assistant Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, in Official and Individual Capacity; FRED SCHILLING, M.D., Director, in Official and Individual Capacity; HARVARD STEPHENS, M.D., Chief Physician, in Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00161-RLW)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Louis Lee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Lee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Patrick Gurney, Fred Schilling, and Harvard Stephens. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because proceedings are ongoing as to one defendant in the district court, and the district court did not direct entry of judgment as to the other parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the order Lee seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis

& Co. , 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors of Harris Interactive Inc.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated July 29, 2002 appearing in the 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K, also
included an audit of the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14(a)(2) of
this Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.





/S/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Rochester, New York
July 29, 2002
**Exhibit
      10**











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (File Number 333-13818) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File
      Number 333-114668) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 1997 Key Employee Share
      Incentive Plan, of our report dated January 29, 2006, with respect to the
      Consolidated Financial Statements of Radware Ltd., included in its Annual Report
      (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission.












Tel
                - Aviv, Israel
            KOST
                FORER GABBAY & KASIERERApril
                26, 2006
            A
                Member of Ernst & Young Global
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF


THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Richard J. Leimbach, Chief Financial Officer of Telkonet, Inc. (the “Company”),
      certify that:





(1)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,
      2006
      which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











/s/
      Richard J. Leimbach


Richard
      J. Leimbach


Vice
      President of Finance


March
      16,
      2007
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS T. BUDD, JR.

July 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Lynette C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Jack S. Lusk, Robert Reiser, Anthony Spicola and Lisa Peragino Mintz, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-9247.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2003.

K.C. Okoli, New York, N.Y., for Appellant.

Luisa K. Hagemeier, (Dorothea W. Regal, on the brief), Hoguet, Newman & Regal, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.

PRESENT: McLAUGHLIN, CABRANES and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Lynette Thompson, a black woman of Trinidadian origin, filed a complaint against several New York City Transit Authority employees on April 18, 1996. The complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against Thompson on the basis her race, gender, and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.,*42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York State Executive Law § 296. In particular, the complaint asserts that the defendants discriminated against Thompson by failing to interview her for an open position in the department, failing to promote her to that position, and retaliating against her for filing an employment discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

On October 5, 2001, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In a careful and comprehensive, 79-page opinion, the District Court analyzed the evidence presented by Thompson in support of each of her claims and concluded that no genuine issues of material fact existed. The District Court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we agree that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing Thompson’s complaint is hereby AFFIRMED.
**Rule 13a-14(a)[Section 302] Certification for Form 10-K/A (CFO)**
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Charles Chao, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of SINA Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release33-8238.]  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.
/s/ Charles Chao
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
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 In connection with the annual report of GeneMax Corp. (the company) on Form 10-KSB/A for
fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certifies for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that:  1.
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Exchange Act; and2.
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company. Date: April 29, 2005
    
    Edward FarrautoEdward Farrauto, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                              SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO
                        NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN
                          FOR NON-EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES


         THIS SEVENTH AMENDMENT (the "Seventh Amendment") is made effective as
of the 20th day of January, 2000, by PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation formerly known as Medaphis Corporation (the "Company").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted the Medaphis Corporation
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Executive Employees, as amended (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company has duly authorized an amendment of the Plan to reflect the recent name
change of the Company, and to increase the number of shares available for grant
pursuant to the Plan from 2,333,333 shares (as adjusted to reflect a
one-for-three reverse stock split effective November 23, 1999) to 2,518,333
shares.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the name
"Medaphis Corporation" from the Plan and replacing such name with the name
"Per-Se Technologies, Inc."

         FURTHER, Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 3
of the Plan in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

                                   SECTION 3.

                         SHARES RESERVED UNDER THE PLAN

                           "There shall be 2,518,333 shares of Stock reserved
                  for issuance under this Plan, and such shares of Stock shall
                  be reserved to the extent that the Company deems appropriate
                  from authorized but unissued shares of Stock and from shares
                  of Stock which have been repurchased by the Company.
                  Furthermore, any shares of Stock subject to an Option that
                  remain unissued after the cancellation or expiration of such
                  Option thereafter shall again become available for use under
                  this Plan."

         FURTHER, except as specifically amended by this Seventh Amendment, the
Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Seventh Amendment.





<PAGE>   2

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Seventh Amendment to
be effective as of the day and year first above written.

                                   PER-SE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                   By:/s/ ALLEN W. RITCHIE
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                      Allen W. Ritchie
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


ATTEST:



By:/s/ RANDOLPH L. M. HUTTO
   -----------------------------
   Randolph L. M. Hutto
   Secretary


                                       2