alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

(pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350))



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. §1350), the undersigned, Gordon Link, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:



| | (a) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2003 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: May 15, 2003



/s/ Gordon Link

Gordon Link

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
HEMAGEN DIAGNOSTICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                  STATEMENT OF PER SHARE NET INCOME (LOSS)

EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                       Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                            June 30,                June 30
                                       ------------------      -----------------
                                         1997        1996       1997       1996
                                      -------------------------------------------
 
<S>                                   <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
 Net income (loss)                    $ 118,930   $ 102,921  $ 220,382  $(591,232)
                                      -------------------------------------------
Net income (loss) per share           $    0.02   $    0.01  $    0.03  $   (0.12)
                                      -------------------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding   7,677,989   7,370,245  7,648,993  5,010,090
                                      -------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 25, 2023

NO. 03-22-00711-CV

Jeremy Ryan Atkinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 27, 2020. Having reviewed 

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the Court 

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### Webster *v.*The State.

An indictment for gaming need not state the name of the game played, but there should be in it some description of the game, as that it was with cards, dice, &c.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

Indictment. The charge was as follows: That *Milton Webster,*on, &c., at, &c., “ did then and there unlawfully win of one *James Horner*the sum of twenty-five cents, by then and there unlawfully betting and wagering the said sum with the said *James*on a certain game and wager that was then and there had and played between them, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace,” &c.

Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the state.

This indictment, we think, is defective. The offence is not described with sufficient certainty. It is true, that the name of the game need not be stated in the indictment. *The State*v. *Maxwell, 5*Blackf. 230. But there should be in it some description of the game, as that it was with cards, dice, &c., in order that the defendant may be apprized of the particular charge which he is required to answer.

*401*C. H. Test,*for the plaintiff.

*A. A. Hammond*and *J. B. Julian,*for the state.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.
BILL OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS,  that  ELIZABETH C. REED TRUST  ("Seller"),  in
consideration  of  Ninety-Nine  Thousand  Seven  Hundred  Fifty and /oo  Dollars
($99,750.00)  and  other  good  and  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,  does hereby grant, convey, assign,
transfer and deliver to Mestek, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation ("Buyer"), free
and  clear  of  all  liens,   encumbrances,   restrictions  and  adverse  claims
whatsoever,  all of the machinery,  equipment,  fixtures,  jigs, dies,  tooling,
patterns,  tooling  fixtures  identified  in  Schedule  1 attached  hereto  (the
"Machinery & Equipment"),  together with any rights of Seller to all warranties,
if any,  and to the  extent  assignable,  received  from the  manufacturers  and
sellers of such items.

Seller does for itself,  and its successors and assigns,  covenant and agree, at
its own expense, to warrant and defend the title to and the sale and transfer of
the Machinery & Equipment unto Buyer,  its  successors and assigns,  against all
claims whatsoever.

Seller shall, at the request of Buyer and without further consideration, execute
and deliver such other  instruments of  conveyance,  assignment and transfer and
take such other  actions  as Buyer may  reasonably  require to more  effectively
convey,  assign,  transfer to and vest in Buyer,  good and marketable  title and
possession in the Machinery & Equipment.

Buyer hereby accepts the Equipment "AS IS" and "WHERE IS" and  understands  that
there are NO WARRANTEES  EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,  INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED  WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY  OR  FITNESS  FOR A  PARTICULAR  PURPOSE  granted  or given with
respect to the Machinery & Equipment.

By acceptance hereof,  Buyer agrees to utilize,  guard and equip the Machinery &
Equipment  as  required  under  the  applicable  rules  and  regulations  of the
Occupational  Safety and Health  Administration  ("OSHA") and to comply with any
and all applicable  OSHA  standards in its sale,  use,  modification,  repair or
refurbishment of the Equipment with all appropriate disclaimers for and in favor
of the Seller, and to hold Seller harmless for any claims related thereto.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Seller  has  executed  this  Bill of Sale this 1st day of
January, 1999.

WITNESS:                                             ELIZABETH C. REED TRUST

                                                      /S/ JOHN E. REED
---------------------------                          ---------------------------
                                                     By: John E. Reed
                                                     Its: Trustee
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

                  1.       the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year
         ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") of CryptoLogic Inc. (the
         "Company") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
         or 78o(d)), and

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

                                           /s/ Lewis Rose
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Lewis Rose
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 13, 2003
#### W. H. Arnett and Wife *v.*Baird & Craycroft.

Cotenancy — Reservations as to One Cotenant.

It is error to subject property purchased jointly to the debts of one of the parties solely, without reserving the rights of one of the purchasers who had paid a part of the purchase money.

Fraudulent Conveyance — Allegations as to.

A mere charge that “the deed was in fraud and the land ought to be subjected to plaintiff’s claim,” without stating in what the fraud consists nor for what purpose the deed was so made, is totally insufficient as a charge of a fraudulent conveyance.

APPEAL FROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1865.

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Williams:

The court being sufficiently advised delivered the following opinion, to-wit:

Appellees, who were the plaintiffs below, brought suit against W. H. Arnett to subject some land to the payment of their judgment against him on which they had execution and a return of no property.

They subsequently filed an amended petition against Arnett and his wife, setting out that they jointly purchased the seventy-one acres of land of Hamilton at $18 per acre, that Mrs. Arnett paid a part of the purchase price, and her husband the larger portion, and that a bond for the title had been taken to them jointly; that afterward when all the purchase price was paid she took the deed to herself, and they charge that *“*the deed so made was *made*in fraud, and the land ought to be subject to the pay*336ment of plaintiffs’ claim.” And this is the only charge assailing the deed. It does not state in what the fraud consists, nor for what purpose, nor for what purpose the deed was so made. This is totally insufficient as a charge of fraudulent conveyance, in fact it seems to state a deduction of law, rather than charge acts and motives.

A judgment by default was rendered ordering a sale of the land without regard to Mrs. Arnett’s rights as a joint purchaser who had paid at least a portion of the purchase money, as shown by the amended petition, and this was certainly erroneous. .

After the land was ordered to be sold Mrs. Arnett offered an answer in which she sets out that she was the sole purchaser, and states how she paid the purchase price, and explains how the title bond came to be to herself and husband jointly, when it should have been to her, and that her husband was then in the military service of the government. She was in bad health, and had been badly advised, hence she did not offer the defense in proper time.

Had the judgment been properly rendered perhaps we should not have disturbed it because of the rejection of this answer, but as the judgment must be reversed for other errors it will be proper when the cause is returned that the court permit said answer to be filed as it presents an available and substantial defense.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and cause remanded, with directions for further proceedings compatible with this opinion.
#### Elliott Associates, L.P., et al., Appellants, v Dennis C. Hayes et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 872]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered June 4, 2003 and June 17, 2003, which granted the motions of defendants Hayes, Howard, Quek, Tam, Lam and Dreyer to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly understood the federal court ruling and its affirmance in a related action as precluding plaintiffs’ fraud claim herein. Upon our review of the record, we find plaintiffs’ other claims are similarly precluded since they arose from the same series of transactions between the parties, involved the same issues, and were necessarily determined. Collateral estoppel precludes reassertion of the same wrongs under a different legal theory (see *Rand v Texaco, Inc.,*305 AD2d 285 [2003]; *Tsabbar v Delena,*300 AD2d 196 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 508 [2003]).

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the other grounds urged for affirmance. We have considered plaintiffs’ other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Telkonet Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason L. Tienor, Chief Executive Officer of Telkonet, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Jason L. Tienor


Jason L. Tienor


Chief Executive Officer


March 29, 2011
Exhibit 32.1



                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
       ------------------------------------------------------------------


     In connection with the amended amended Report of Napoli  Enterprises,  Inc.
on Form  10-KSB  for the  year  ending  December  31,  2003 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory Sonic,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     1.   The Report  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 Company.



August 9, 2004



/s/ Gregory Sonic
--------------------------
Gregory Sonic
Chief Executive Officer






















                                        1
<PAGE>





                            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 amended amended Report of Napoli  Enterprises,  Inc.
on Form  10-KSB  for the  year  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Nelly Sonic,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

           3.  The Report complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15
               (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           4.  The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  In all
               material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
               operations of the Company.


August 9, 2004

/s/ Nelly Sonic


--------------------------

Nelly Sonic
Chief Financial Officer























                                        2
ASTRONAUT JESSICA WATKINS

Jessica Watkins grew up in Colorado.

She was selected as an astronaut in 2017.

She studied geology in college. A geologist studies rocks.

Jessica is part of the Artemis team of astronauts.

The Artemis program will land the fi rst woman

and next man on the Moon. 

Can you help her navigate the maze to get

to the Moon rock?

Learn more about Jessica Watkins at https://go.nasa.gov/3jaOTme.
*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 25, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY JOE WINROW,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-5019

v. (N.D. Oklahoma)

JUSTIN JONES, Director; WALTER

DINWIDDIE, Warden; JAMES

LOWMAN, employee; JACK

LEMONS, employee; SGT. REEVES,

employee,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00761-JHP-TLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Billy Joe Winrow, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals

the dismissal of his civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various

personnel of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The United States District

Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that his claims were barred by

Appellate Case: 10-5019 Document: 01018428506 Date Filed: 05/25/2010 Page: 1
-2-

his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We see no error in the cogent decision by the district court. As we

understand Mr. Winrow’s brief on appeal, the essence of his argument is that

there were no administrative remedies to pursue because the prison informed him

(apparently incorrectly) in its response to a request to staff (RTS) that the matter

was the subject of litigation and therefore could not be considered. We reject the

argument. First, Mr. Winrow does not explain why he could not have pursued the

denial of his RTS by filing a grievance through proper prison procedures. 

Second, the record establishes that he did not misunderstand the response to his

RTS as barring prison administrative remedies; even after that response, he

repeatedly submitted grievances and requests to staff (albeit improperly)

regarding the same incident. 

We AFFIRM the judgment below.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 10-5019 Document: 01018428506 Date Filed: 05/25/2010 Page: 2
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 30, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00622-CV

HERMAN BRASHEAR, Appellant

V.

D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D/B/A THE VINEYARDS APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02418-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang-Miers 

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Before the Court is appellant’s motion for nonsuit. Appellant has informed the Court that 

he no longer desires to prosecute this matter. We treat appellant’s motion as a motion to dismiss. 

We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

130622F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HERMAN BRASHEAR, Appellant

No. 05-13-00622-CV V.

D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D/B/A THE 

VINEYARDS APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02418-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. 

Justices Moseley and Bridges, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee, D. VINEYARDS, L.P. D/B/A THE VINEYARDS 

APARTMENTS, recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, HERMAN BRASHEAR.

Judgment entered this 30th day of July, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RIGHTS AGREEMENT

     Pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights  Agreement dated as of April 18, 1997,
as amended by the First  Amendment to the Rights  Agreement  dated as of October
22,  1998  (collectively,  the  "Agreement"),  between  SanDisk  Corporation,  a
Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  and Harris Trust and Savings  Bank, an
Illinois banking corporation (the "Rights Agent"),  the Company,  and the Rights
Agent at the Company's direction,  hereby amend the Agreement as of December 17,
1999, as provided below.

     1. Exercise of Rights;  Purchase Price;  Expiration Date of Rights. Section
7(b) of the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

     a.   The number  "$65.00"  in the second  line shall be  replaced  with the
          number "$500.00".

     The undersigned officer of the Company, being an appropriate officer of the
Company and  authorized  to do so by resolution of the board of directors of the
Company dated as of December 17, 1999, hereby certifies to the Rights Agent that
these  amendments  are  in  compliance  with  the  terms  of  Section  27 of the
Agreement.



                               SANDISK CORPORATION


                               By        /s/ Cindy Burgdorf
                                         -----------------------
                               Name:     Cindy Burgdorf
                               Title:    Chief Financial Officer


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK,
as Rights Agent


By:
         ----------------------
Name:
Title:
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





*On
      March 21, 2003, the Company terminated the employment of its four senior
      officers due to corporate mismanagement in the form of accounting irregularities
      and securities fraud during the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002 and 2001.
      At
      the time of their termination, all of these former officers were the subject
      of
      an investigation by the United States Department of Justice and three were
      subject to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On August
      19, 2003, as a result of the United States Department of Justice investigation,
      three of the former officers pled guilty to conspiring to inflate the revenue
      and earnings of the Company and for lying to investigators and the fourth former
      officer pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Also on August 19, 2003, the
      former officers who were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
      Commission agreed to a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission. As a result of the actions of the former officers of the Company,
      and due to the Company’s inability to adequately verify the results of the
      Company’s operations for the year ended October 31, 2002 because of incomplete
      or missing data, the Company was not able to prepare complete and accurate
      financial statements for the quarters ended January 31, 2002, April 30, 2002,
      July 31, 2002 and the year ended October 31, 2002, except for the balance sheet
      dated as of October 31, 2002 included in the Company’s annual report on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002. Since the Company does not
      have complete and accurate financial statements for 2002, certain portions
      of
      this report do not contain the required comparison to the results of operations
      in 2002. Consequently, the Company’s current Chief Executive Officer is unable
      to include the certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.*