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







M
& F BANCORP, INC.





Certification
of Periodic Financial Report


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of M & F Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as amended by Amendment No.1, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (together the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:
            April
      24,
      2009
            
            /s/ Kim D.
      Saunders
              
              Kim
      D. Saunders
                President
      and Chief Executive Officer








Dated:
            April
      24,
      2009
            
            /s/Lyn
      Hittle
              
              Lyn
      Hittle
                Chief Financial
    Officer





















*This
certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
SCWC-17-0000666

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

KAWIKA FRANCO, Individually and as Personal Representative for 

the Estate of TIARE FRANCO; PEACHES KONG and APPLES ELABAN, as 

Next Friends of LOVELY FRANCO (Minor); TAUA GLEASON, as Next 

Friend of KOLOMANA KONG KANIAUPIO GLEASON and KAULANA KONG 

KANIAUPIO GLEASON (Minors); and CHERYL RUSSELL, as Next Friend 

of JEANNE RUSSELL (Minor),

Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

SABIO REINHARDT,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee,

and

JOSIAH OKUDARA,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000666; CASE NO. 2CC121000458)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Eddins, J.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court, filed 

on November 30, 2023, is corrected as follows:

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000666

18-DEC-2023

10:35 AM

Dkt. 27 OCOR
2

On page 8, line 2, the word “default” is corrected to read 

“final.”

The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary 

steps to notify the publishing agencies of this change.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 18, 2023.

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Associate Justice
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH STENSON.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### THEODORE CHENG v. P. LIEDTKA TRUCKING INC.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CARRAMERICA
REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
MARCH 31, 1997 AND FROM CARRAMERICA REALTY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                        U.S.
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                          35,197
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,324<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,672,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,757,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        735,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         17
<COMMON>                                           487
<OTHER-SE>                                     915,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,757,316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
<FN>
<F1>
Notes & accounts receivable are presented net of allowance for doubtful
accounts as the allowance is immaterial.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Andrew E. Check, Respondent, v Adnan Gacevk, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 218]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated April 23, 2004, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) through the submission of the plaintiffs deposition testimony, the records of the plaintiffs treating physicians, and the affirmed medical reports of the defendant’s examining physicians *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Fragale v Geiger,*288 AD2d 431 [2001]; *Hodges v Jones,*238 AD2d 962 [1997]). The submissions of the plaintiff in opposition to the cross motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The conclusions of the plaintiff’s expert physician, who examined the plaintiff for the first time approximately 15 months after the accident, were contradicted by the findings and reports of the plaintiffs own treating physicians and failed to take into account the injuries sustained by the plaintiff in two previous motor vehicle accidents.

*587Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### CLEVELAND CHRISTMAS v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD.

April 10, 1984.

The Court having determined that this matter does not present questions that may be appealed as of right under *R.*2:2-l(a), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the within matter be treated as a petition for certification from the judgment of the Appellate Division; and it is further

ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
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 AIMS Worldwide, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Garcia, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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











/s/Gerald Garcia, Jr.

Gerald Garcia, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 15, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.5
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                              ANTEX BIOLOGICS INC.

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

           Antex Biologics Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY:
           FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Company, at a meeting
duly called and held, adopted a resolution proposing and declaring advisable
the following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company:

           RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company be
amended by changing the first paragraph of Article Fourth to read as follows:

           FOURTH.  Authorized Capital.  The total number of shares of capital
           stock that the corporation shall have authority to issue is One
           Hundred Million (100,000,000), consisting of Ninety-Five Million
           (95,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, and
           Five Million (5,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, par value $0.01
           per share, amounting in the aggregate to One Million Dollars
           ($1,000,000).

           SECOND:  That at the 1997 annual meeting of shareholders of the
Company duly called and held in accordance with Section 222 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware a majority of the outstanding stock
entitled to vote thereon voted in favor of said amendment.

           THIRD:  That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be
signed by V. M. Esposito, its President, and attested by Gregory C. Zakarian,
its Secretary, this 5th day of May, 1997.

                                            ANTEX BIOLOGICS INC.


                                            By:      /s/V. M. Esposito       
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                     V. M. Esposito
                                                     President
                                          
Attest:      /s/Gregory C. Zakarian     
         -------------------------------
           Gregory C. Zakarian
           Secretary





                                       13
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00187

- CV
Michael McCann, TDCJ # 879919 v. Megan Thompson, et al.
On Appeal from the 343rd District Court of Bee County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. B

- 18

- 1193

- CV

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, hav in g considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. No costs are assessed as appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs. We further order this deci si on certified below for observance. September 16 , 2021
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8, SEC File Nos. 333-11598 and 333-72320) pertaining tothe 1990 Share Option Scheme, the 1997 Share Option Scheme, the 1998 Directors and Consultants Option Scheme, the Exceptis Share Option Scheme, the 1999 Employee Savings Related Share Option Scheme and the 1999 U.S. Employee Share Purchase Plan ofTrintech Group PLC of our report dated February 24, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Trintech Group PLC included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended January 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young 

 

ERNST & YOUNG 

Dublin, Ireland 

May 12, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3 - 0 445 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LESLIE WADE SORLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 2nd, 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2024

07/23/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0445
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2347 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 703
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2347

                          [Report No. 108-349]

    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
  permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition 
             assistance programs established under the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2004

     Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. 
  Lieberman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                           September 20, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, with an amendment
  [Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
  permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition 
             assistance programs established under the Act.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION OF TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Public School Program.--Section 3(i) of the District of 
Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (sec. 38--2702(i), D.C. Official 
Code) is amended by striking <DELETED>``each of the five succeeding 
fiscal years'' and inserting ``each succeeding fiscal year''.
<DELETED>    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act 
(sec. 38--2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``each of 
the five succeeding fiscal years'' and inserting ``each succeeding 
fiscal year''.</DELETED>
``five'' and inserting ``10''.
    (b) Private School Program.--Section 5(f) of such Act (sec. 38--
2704(f), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``five'' and 
inserting ``10''.

                                                       Calendar No. 703

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2347

                          [Report No. 108-349]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

    To amend the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to 
  permanently authorize the public school and private school tuition 
               assistance programs established under Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 20, 2004

                       Reported with an amendment
```
#### LINDA BURGESS, JOY CLEMENT, BONNIE EDDLEMAN, META FISHER, TERRY KESLER, TOMMY KNOX, GENE MOORE and MARK SIDES v. MERLE RUDY BUSBY

No. 196PA01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 142 N.C. App. 393, 544 S.E.2d 4 (2001), affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part an order entered 23 August 1999 by McHugh, J., in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 October 2001.

*Donaldson & Black, P.A., by Arthur J. Donaldson and Rachel Scott Decker, for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Morris York Williams Surles & Barringer, LLP, by John H. Capitano and John P. Barringer, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
(January 11, 2005)

#### Liliane Unanue, Appellant, v Ira Leon Rennert et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[787 NYS2d 314]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered August 13, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion and cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) for failure to comply with a prior court order directing that plaintiff furnish her post office and residence addresses, unanimously reversed, without costs, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the complaint reinstated as against all defendants except as to defendant Vigilante, and the complaint dismissed *361as against Vigilante unless plaintiff provides a verified statement pursuant to CPLR 3118 and consents to accept service of a trial subpoena within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Plaintiff commenced this action in 1995, alleging that in early 1994 her upstairs co-op neighbors had hired contractors to install a new air conditioning system, that the work was performed negligently, and that plaintiff’s apartment and personal property were damaged by water. By notice, defendant Vigilante demanded plaintiff’s post office and residence addresses pursuant to CPLR 3118. Despite a further demand by Vigilante and an order by the IAS court, plaintiff refused to comply. Ultimately, defendant Vigilante moved, and other defendants cross-moved, to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Vigilante’s CPLR 3118 demand. Plaintiffs arguments that a CPLR 3118 demand must meet a particularized relevancy test and that Vigilante intends to misuse such information are either specious or unsupported by the evidence. Plaintiffs submission of a letter, late in 2003, providing post office and residence addresses in Spain, was inadequate, since the information was not contained in a verified statement, as required by the statute. Nevertheless, dismissal, even as to defendant Vigilante, which served the demand, was unduly harsh, since the discovery noncompliance related to a single order, the information sought did not go to the essence of Vigilante’s ability to present its position at trial, and plaintiff sought to cure the noncompliance. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File No. 333-53600) on Form S-8 of *MutualFirst*Financial, Inc.'s 2000 Recognition and Retention Plan and 2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan of ourreport dated February 4, 2005 of our audits of the consolidated financial statements of *MutualFirst* Financial, Inc as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years in the periodended December 31, 2004, and of our report dated March 25, 2005 on management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports are included in *MutualFirst* Financial, Inc.'s amended annual report on Form 10-K/A forthe year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ BKD, LLP

Indianapolis, IndianaJune 7, 2005**
#### ROBERT REMBOSKE v. HOMASOTE COMPANY.

May 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### In the Matter of Keith Larmon, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[787 NYS2d 918]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered December 24, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

In 1997, petitioner was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 6 to 18 years. On January 7, 2003, he made his initial appearance before the Board of Parole seeking parole release. His request was denied and his next appearance before the Board was scheduled for January 2005. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the deter*961mination. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that the denial of petitioner’s request for parole was not irrational. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that decisions regarding release on parole are discretionary and will not be disturbed absent a “ ‘showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]). Although the Board is required to consider the factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c), it is not required to give equal weight to each factor or specifically articulate every factor considered in making its decision *{see Matter of Zhang v Travis,*10 AD3d 828, 829 [2004]; *Matter of De La Cruz v Travis,*10 AD3d 789, 790 [2004]). Contrary to petitioner’s claim, the record in the case at hand does not reveal that the Board based the denial of his request for parole solely upon the violent nature of the underlying crimes. Rather, the Board also considered petitioner’s flight to Canada following his commission of the crimes, his potential deportation, his completion of certain institutional programs and receipt of a certificate of earned eligibility, as well as one prison disciplinary infraction. In view of this, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s discretionary determination *(see Matter of Ek v New York State Bd. of Parole,*307 AD2d 433 [2003]; *Matter of Arlequin v Travis,*277 AD2d 576 [2000]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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 Radware Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Roy Zisapel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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.

Date: March 25, 2009

| |  | /s/ Roy Zisapel
Roy ZisapelChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---