alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Malden, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:





| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




By:

/s/    NICHOLAS
MALDENNicholas Malden Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary August 9,
2002





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21      [ADDITIONAL UPDATE AS APPROPRIATE]

                         NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Wilshire Alabama Partners, LLC, an Alabama limited liability company
Wilshire Advisors, LLC, a New York limited liability company
Wilshire New York Advisers II, LLC, a New York limited liability company
Wilshire New York Partners III,LLC, a New York limited liability company
The Whitestone Group, LLC, a New York limited liability company
Wilshire Investors, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company
Wilshire Georgia Partners, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company
Wilshire Louisiana Advisers, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company
Wilshire Louisiana Partners, II, a Louisiana limited liability company
Wilshire Louisiana Partners, III, a Louisiana limited liability company
Wilshire Partners, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
Newtek Securities, LLC, a New York limited liability company
BJB Holdings, Inc. , a New York corporation
Wilshire Holdings I, a New York corporation
Wilshire Holdings II, a New York corporation
REXX Environmental Corporation, a New York corporation
Whitestone Capital Markets, Inc., a New York corporation
Wilshire Colorado Partners, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Wilshire Texas Partners, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (in active)

[Partner Company Subsidiaries:]
SBA, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Newtek Small Business Finance, Inc., a New York corporation
Harvest Strategies, LLC, a New York limited liability company
PPM Link, LLC, and New York limited liability company
Universal Processing Services, LLC, a New York limited liability company
Universal Processing Services -- Louisiana, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability
company
Universal Processing Services - Wisconsin, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability
company
Universal Processing Services - Colorado, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company
Group Management Technologies, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
Group Management Technologies of Louisiana, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability
company
Global Small Business Services, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
Exponential Business Development Company, Inc., a New York corporation
DC Media Finance, LLC, a New York limited liability company
Advanced Internet Design & Applications, LLC, a New York limited liability
company
#### CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY v. ROSARIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

December 16, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 10.11
AMENDMENT TO BELDEN INC.
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


The Belden Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan is amended by replacing "1000" in the
next-to-last sentence of Paragraph 11.1 (Grants) of Article 11 (Directors' Stock
Options) of the Incentive Plan with "2000."
#### Temple’s Admr. *v.*Beck & Messing Slaughter.

Note —■ Non Est Factum.

The appellee plead *non est factum*to the note, and it is conceded that the evidence as to handwriting leaves the genuineness of the note doubtful; we think the circumstancSs greatly preponderate in favor of its validity.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 25, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Johnson sold to appellees a tract of land and executed his deed to them July 29, 1859, at $500, to be paid, $150' March, 1860; *162$150 March 1, 1861, and $200 March 1, 1862. At the same time decedent, Temple, sold to Johnson a house at $150 and was to take one of these payments. The appellees took possession of this land, cut and sold the timber, and have never been disturbed .or turned out.

The evidence tends to prove that the use of the timber was a great inducement and that appellees were more anxious to *get*it than to ascertain the validity of the title.

Temple having died his administrators bring this suit to recover the $150, evidenced by a note payable to him, dated July 30, 1859, and indorsed, “I assign the within note to Joseph Temple for value received of him. E. D. W. Johnson.

“Tobeth Johnson.”

To this note appellees plead *non est factum.*The evidence further tends to prove that one of the obligors, after service of process, at least after suit, desired to renew the note and get further time.

If it be conceded that the evidence as to handwriting leaves the genuineness of the note doubtful, we think the circumstances greatly preponderate in favor of its validity. It was nearly six years from the date of the note to the bringing of this suit, and had Temple still survived it is likely further indulgence would have been granted; this debt has never been paid, but was, after the suit was brought, still recognized as subsisting by one of the obligors; the note being subsequent in date to the deed indicates that a subsequent transaction was made between Temple and appellees, rather fortified than expelled by the indorsement by Johnson and.wife on the back of the note.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, with directions to enter judgment for appellants on said note.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5

<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3,794
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     90,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       115,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  252,319
<PP&E>                                            591,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                    188,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,388,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             210,227
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             101,306
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          298
<OTHER-SE>                                        414,331
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,388,786
<SALES>                                           798,981
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  798,981
<CGS>                                             701,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     701,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                49,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (4,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,744
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (5,382)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (7,998)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.27)



</TABLE>
#### Craig & Holley *v.*John F. Haggard.

Sale of Personal Property — Retention of Possession by Vendor — Fraud on Creditors — Instructions.

Retention of the possession and use by the vendor, inconsistent with the title claimed by the vendee, was *per se*a legal fraud, which made the sale void as to the vendor’s creditors.

Same.

The court erred in refusing the following instruction to the jury: “ If they believe from the evidence, that after the alleged sale from F. Haggard to his attorney, said Haggard retained control and use of the property, the sale as to the creditors and third persons was fraudulent and void.”

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 7, 1867.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge 'Kobertson.

The facts all admitted, the only legal conclusion is that no title to any specific corn had ever been vested in the appellee, even if the contract of sale was made in mutual good faith. Mrs. Adam’s share had not been separated. No certain price had been fixed, the quantity sold had not been ascertained, and the vendor’s reserved use for consumption made it uncertain how much or whether any would be left in the spring when the vendee was to have whatever might then remain unconsumed. And, -therefore, *15•when the execution of appellants was levied on the gross crop the appellee could have maintained no action for it or for any identical portion of it.

*Holt & Hurst, for appellant.*

*T. Turner, for appellee.*

Moreover, the retention of the possession and use by the vendor as ostensible owner inconsistently with the absolute title claimed by the vendee was *per se*a legal fraud, which made the sale void as to the vendor’s creditors, and on this point the Circuit Court erred in refusing to give the following instruction: *“*If the jury believe from the evidence that, after the alleged sale from B. Haggard to attorney, said B. Haggard retained control of and used the property, then the sale as to creditors and third persons was fraudulent and void, and they must find for the defendants.”

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
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 June 30, 2010 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, Melanie R. Wenk , Vice
President-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;
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/MELANIE R.
WENK


Melanie
R. Wenk


Vice
President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date: August
6, 2010
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M AR IA FER IA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. DEVR Y UNIVER SITY, INC ., Errone ously Sue d As De Vry Inc , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56166 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02111-R -VB K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 9, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd RESTANI, *** Judge
. M aria Fe ria (“ Fe ria ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of De Vry

Unive rsity , Inc . (“ De V ry ” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 

# FIL ED
JUN 13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa ne l una n im ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honora

ble Ja ne A. R e sta

ni, Judgefor the Unite d State s C ourt of Inte rnationa l Tra de , sitting by de signa tion.U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo, c onstruing the fa c t s a n d dra wing re a sona

ble infe re nc e s in fa

v or of the nonm oving pa

rty . Ea rl v. Nie lse n M e dia

R e s., Inc
. , 658 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th C ir. 2011). 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e nt on thewrongful te rm ination in viola

tion of publicpolic y

c la im . Fe ria

fa i le d to a lle g e suffic ie nt fa c t s tha t she wa s a c tua lly

or c onstruc tive ly

disc ha rge d. Se e Turne r v. Anhe use rB usc h, Inc ., 876 P.2d 1022, 1025, 1027, 1030 (C a l. 1994). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e nt on theC a lifornia La bor C ode §§ 1102.5(b) a

n d (c ) c la im s. Fe ria

wa s not subje c te d to a

n a c tiona ble
a dve rse e m

ploy m e nt a c tion, prim arily

be c a use she wa s not a c tua lly

or
c onstruc tive l y

disc ha rge d
. Se e Ya

nowitz v. L’ Ore a l USA, Inc ., 116 P.3d 1123, 1142–43 (C a l. 2005) (de fining a dve rse e m ploy m e n t a c tion); se e a lso Edge rly v. C ity of Oakla nd, 150 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 425, 430–31 (C t. App. 2012); M okle r v. C ty . of Orange , 68 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 568, 580 (C t. App. 2007). Feria ha s a lso not m e t the sta tutory re quire m e n t s be c a

u s e she m a de only

an inte rna l c om

pla int, ra the r tha n filing a re port with “ a

gove rnm e nt or la

w e nforc e m e nt a ge nc y . ” C a l. La b. C ode § 1102.5(b) (2003). Thus, the re is no ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a nd the distric t c o urt prope rly

grante d sum m ary judgm e nt. AFFIRM E D.
2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Credence Systems Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 4, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Lavi A. Lev, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has
not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: September 18, 2007             
|                                     
|/s/ LAVI A. LEV                      
|Lavi A. Lev                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### M'Cormick *v.*Digby and Others.—On appeal.

TO secure a debt of 2,000 dollars due from *W.*to *D.,*the former assigned to the latter two notes on *B.*of 1,000 dollars each, and also mortgaged to him certain real estate. The debt, except 1,100 dollars, being afterwards paid, *D.*gave up the assigned notes, and took *W.’s*notes for the 1,100 dollars. *Held,*that the mortgage continued as a security for the last-named sum.

If a mortgagee of real estate stand by at a sale of part of the premises by the mortgagor, acquiesce in the sale, and receive the consideration of the pui*chase, that part of the premises is thereby freed from the mortgage.

CA judgment against a mortgagor is a lien on the equity of redemption of the land mortgaged, and after the discharge of the mortgage, the lien is on the feeN

After a mortgagee has assignedum mortgage, he cannot discharge any part of the premises from the mortgage.

A mortgagee in possession, or his assignee, is accountable for the profits and for waste.
#### SUNSHINE BISCUITS, INC. v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1929

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the 

Public Health Service Act to extend the mental health benefits parity 

provisions for an additional year. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2003

Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend 

the mental health benefits parity provisions for an additional year.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mental Health Parity 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS. 

7 (a) ERISA.—Section 712(f) of the Employee Retire8 ment Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185a(f)) 
2

•S 1929 CPS 

1 is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘December 31, 2004’’. 

3 (b) PHSA.—Section 2705(f) of the Public Health 

4 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–5(f)) is amended by strik5 ing ‘‘December 31, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

6 2004’’.

Æ
{"agency":"NASA","generated":"2015-01-26 11:38:05","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["ARC","DFRC","GRC","GSFC","HQ","JPL","JSC","KSC","LaRC","MSFC","NSSC","OGC","OIG","SSC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["8","3","1","24","34","7","33","21","6","9","2"," ","4","3"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["4","3","1","23","37","1","32","36","5","7","5"," ","3","5"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["8"," "," "," ","1"," ","1","4","1"," "," "," "," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q1"}
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2177 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2177

To amend title 10, United States Code, to change the effective date for 
paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 
                      1, 2008, to October 1, 2004.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2004

  Mr. Corzine introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to change the effective date for 
paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 
                      1, 2008, to October 1, 2004.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Survivors' Fairness Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR PAID-UP COVERAGE UNDER SURVIVOR BENEFIT 
              PLAN.

    Section 1452(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``October 1, 2008'' and inserting ``October 1, 2004''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas *v.*Quick.

Debt *on*a promissory note. Plea, that the note was given in part payment of a tract of land, &c., to which the plaintiff had no title. Replication, that the consideration had not failed in manner and form, &c. *Held,*that the replication was sufficient. *Held,*also, that the plaintiff having given the note in evidence, it lay on the defendant to prove the truth of his plea.

*Wednesday, June*3.

ERROR to the *Warren*Circuit Court.

*A. S. White*and *R. A.*Lockwood, for the plaintiff.

*R. A.*Chandler, for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

*Quick*brought an action of debt against *Thomas*on a promissory note. Pleas, 1. *Nil debet;*2. That the note was given in part payment of a tract of land, (describing it,) conveyed by the plaintiff and his wife to the defendant; and that the grantors, at *the*time of the conveyance, had no title to the land. Replication to *the second*plea, that the consideration had not failed in manner and form as alleged. The replication was specially demurred to as being too general. The demurrer was overruled, and the cause submitted to the Court. Final judgment for the plaintiff.

The defendant contends that the replication is bad; We decided at the last term, in the case of *Farmer*v. Fairman, that such a replication as the one before us,, denying generally the matters of excuse contained in the plea, is unobjectionable ; and we are still of the same opinion (1).

It is further contended that the evidence does not support the judgment. We are, however, of a different opinion. The plaintiff read the note in evidence. It then lay on the defendant to prove the facts contained in his special plea; and this he undertook to do. He proved the consideration of the note to be as stated in the plea; but he failed to prove that the grantors had no title to the land (1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

(1)

 Vide *Mitchell*v. Sheldon, Vol. 2 of these Rep. 185. The remark in that case, tliat the want or failure of consideration in assumpsit *must*be pleaded, is probably a mistake. *Jamison*v. Buckner, *Id.*77. See, also, *Elliott*v. *Coggshall,*4 *id.*238.