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

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

The undersigned, Randy Buchamer, Chief Executive Officer of Voice Mobility International, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Voice Mobility International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 (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 Voice Mobility International, Inc.

|Dated: March 26, 2004 |  |                                                                           
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  | /s/ Randy Buchamer                                                        
|                      |  | Randy Buchamer
Chief Executive Officer,
Voice Mobility International, Inc.
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           
|                      |  |                                                                           



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Voice Mobility International, Inc. and will be retained by Voice Mobility International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
<Table>
<Caption>
<S>                                                      <C>                                  <C>
                                                                Jurisdiction
Subsidiary                                                     of Organization                Ownership

Beijing SINA Information Technology Co., Ltd.            People's Republic of China            99.35%

Rich Sight Investment Limited                                    Hong Kong                       100%

SINA.com Online                                           United States of America               100%

Beijing SINA Internet Technology Service Co., Ltd.       People's Republic of China              100%

Shanghai SINA Online Information Technology Co., Ltd.    People's Republic of China              100%

SINA.com (Hong Kong) Limited                                     Hong Kong                       100%

SINA.com (B.V.I.) Ltd.                                      British Virgin Islands               100%

Memestar Limited                                            British Virgin Islands               100%

Shanghai SINA Technology Service Co. Ltd.                People's Republic of China              100%

Star-Village.com (Beijing) Internet Technology Limited   People's Republic of China              100%

Shanghai NC-SINA Information Technology Co. Ltd.         People's Republic of China               51%
</Table>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of M.A.B. and D.R.W., ) children. ) ) ) M.B., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1623 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 25, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Michelle Pincket, Judge. Ryan Thomas Truskowski of Ryan Thomas Truskowski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee for Appellee. Morgan Lyle Weinstein, Pro Bono, Defending Best Interests Project, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Weinstein Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, on behalf of M.B. and D.W.

PER CURIAM.- 2 - Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. 

MATTHEW MOWERY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-2037

(D.C. No. 1:08-CR-02436-JEC-1)

(D. New Mexico)

ORDER

This criminal appeal is before the court based on a “motion for voluntary dismissal”

filed by counsel for Appellant-Defendant Matthew Mowery. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b); 10th

Cir. R. 46.3(B). Attached to this motion is a signed statement by Defendant Mowery electing

to withdraw his appeal. 

Upon consideration, Defendant’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal is

GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2037 Document: 01018410164 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Page: 1
#### Wanda Piatek, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 236]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered March 24, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against her, dismissed the complaint.

*686Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when she fell down a staircase at a subway station in Brooklyn. She alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to have an intermediate handrail on the staircase.

A jury verdict will only be overturned upon a finding that the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]; *Corey v Powell,*53 AD2d 924 [1976]). Here, the jury heard no testimony that the plaintiff would have been able to recover her footing if the missing center handrail had been present. Absent such proof, the jury rationally concluded that the defendant’s claimed negligence in failing to provide a center aisle handrail was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury *(see Hyman v Queens County Bancorp.,*307 AD2d 984 [2003], *affd*3 NY3d 743 [2004]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Smith and Lifson, JJ., concur.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 1 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FALASHA M. AMEN-RA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-3409 MARVIN L. NICHOLS, Commander, USDB Ft. Leavenworth; HERBERT R. TILLERY, Colonel, USDB Ft. Leavenworth, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 96-3418-GTV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **2

Plaintiff Falasha M. Amen-Ra, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, Plaintiff complains that officials at USDB Ft. Leavenworth denied him due process and equal protection of the law when they refused to provide a formal hearing after issuing an observation report regarding his alleged participation in a conspiracy “to create a possible prison disturbance.” Plaintiff also complains that he is the subject of systematic discrimination by officials at USDB Ft. Leavenworth because he “[opened] the pandora’s box concerning military parole” by successfully obtaining a writ of habeas corpus in the case of Jefferson v. Hart , 84 F.3d 1314 (10th Cir. 1996). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, review the district court’s dismissal de novo , Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley,
Inc. , 88 F.3d 848, 854 (10th Cir. 1996), and affirm. In Amen-Ra v. Tillery , 83 F.3d 431, 1996 WL 200368 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished), this Court rejected Plaintiff’s contention that officials at USDB Ft. Leavenworth denied him his right to due process by not providing a formal hearing regarding the exact observation report about which he now complains. The district court recognized Plaintiff’s attempt to relitigate the previously raised claims and dismissed them. The district court also found Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations did not support his contention of systematic discrimination by officials at USDB Ft. Leavenworth. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s discrimination claim for failure to3

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and submitted additional evidence for the district court’s consideration. The district court reviewed the additional evidence and denied the motion. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, pleadings, and the entire record before us. We agree with the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court, Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
DOWNLOADING THE WebEx APPLICATION

To minimize technology issues, we recommend that you download the Webex 

application in advance to your computer or the device you will watch the webinar on. 

 Non-NASA Employees, download the application here: 

https://www.webex.com/downloads.html/

o Select the option on the left side, “ Webex Meetings” 

o If you are using a Mac (Apple) product, go to the Apple store to download 

the application.

Reach out to your company’s tech support team if you need help installing the 

application or need administrator permissions. If these instructions do not work 

for you, you may have the application already downloaded on your computer. 

Check that as well by searching your applications. 

 NASA Employees, download the Webex application here: 

https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/mw3300/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=na

saenterprise&service=1

o Select “Support”, then “Downloads”, then “Cisco Webex Meetings Desktop 

App”

o Use the dropdown box to select the type of computer you have: 

 Windows -PC ,or 

 Mac-Apple

o Select the green “Download” button to download. 
Reach out to the ESD Helpdesk if you need help installing the application or 

need administrator permissions. If these instructions do not work for you, you 

may have the application already downloaded on your computer. Check that as 

well by searching your applications. 

USING AUDIO FROM YOUR DEVICE 

To minimize audio issues, we recommend that you listen through your computer or 

device speakers. We do not recommend using the call-in number. Once inside the 

meeting: 

 Select this option, “Using Computer for Audio”, for the best audio quality.

The “Audos Connection” box typically pops up when you sign into the call. If you 

need to change it manually, select “Communicate” from the top menu bar, and 

then “Audio Connection” from the drop down menu.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | The
 undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:                                                                                                                                        
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|(1) | The
 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
 2008 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 accompanying report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
 Company.                                

|                        |  |                         
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Date: November
 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Bernard
 P. Aldrich 
|                        |  |                         
|                        |  | President
 and Chief    
|                        |  | Executive
 Officer      
|                        |  |                         
|Date: November
 7, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert
 M. Wolf     
|                        |  |                         
|                        |  | Chief
 Financial Officer

29

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act

In  connection  with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group, Inc., I, Richard P. Nespola,  Chairman of the Board,  President and Chief
Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:

1. this Annual 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 this Annual  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for, and as of, the end of such year.

Date: March 30, 2006





                           BY: /S/ RICHARD P. NESPOLA
                        CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT
                           AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In  connection  with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The  Management  Network
Group,  Inc., I, Donald E. Klumb,  Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer of the
registrant, certify that:

1. this Annual 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 this Annual  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant for, and as of, the end of such year.

Date: March 30, 2006





                             BY: /S/ DONALD E. KLUMB
                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER
No. 14,096.

#### Mahoney *v.*Neff et al.

Judgment.— *Of Justice of Peace.*— Duration *of*Lien.— The lien of a judgment rendered before a justice of the peace extends ten years from the date of the rendition of the judgment, and not ten years from the date-of filing the transcript of the judgment in the clerk’s office.

From the Montgomexy Circuit Court.

*381
      *J. Wright*and *J. M. Seller,*for appellant.

*A. D. Thomas*and *W. J. Darnell,*for appellees.

Olds, J.

This is a suit by the appellees against the appellant to recover a judgment against the appellant for the amount of a judgment which appellees held against one Mc-Creary, which, it is alleged, the appellant agreed to pay.

On proper request, the court found the facts and stated its conclusions of law. The court found the facts to be that McCreary owned land in Montgomery county; that appellees recovered a judgment against said McCreary, before-a justice of the peace of said county, on the 3d day of March, 1877 ; that appellees filed a transcript of said judgment in the clerk’s office of said county on the 4th day of December, 1879, and on the 26th day of April, 1887, McCreary sold said land t-o the appellant, and the appellant, as a part of the consideration, agreed to pay all judgments against said McCreary that were liens on said land.

The court stated as a conclusion of law that appellees’ judgment was a lien on said land at the time of the sale. The appellant excepts to the conclusion of law.

More than ten years having elapsed from the rendition of the judgment to the date of the sale, and the sale having occurred less than ten years from the date of filing a transcript in the clerk’s office, the correctness of the conclusion of law stated by the court depends upon whether the judgment lien extends ten years from the date of the rendition of the judgment before the justice of the peace, or ten years from the date of filing the transcript of the judgment in the clerk’s office. This question has been recently fully considered and decided by this court holding that the lien only extends ten years from the date of the rendition of the judgment, and we deem it unnecessary to further discuss the question. *Brown*v. *Wushoff,*118 Ind. 569.

The court erred in its conclusions of law.

Judgment reversed, at costs of appellees, with instructions *382to the circuit court to restate its conclusion of law and render judgment in accordance with this opinion.

Filed April 26, 1890.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             579                     770
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,625                  56,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,296                   8,523
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,469                  54,565
<PP&E>                                          26,473                  25,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,589                  11,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,840                  98,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,233                  18,893
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            62                      62
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,804                  54,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,840                  98,736
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,554                  36,910
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,830                  33,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,375                   1,071
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 575                     270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,774                   2,496
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,118                   1,007
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,656                   1,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,656                   1,489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.26                   $0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.26                   $0.23
        

</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

981 

CAF 13-01637 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL J. MEAD, SR., 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LISA M. HORN, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

KELIANN M. ARGY, ORCHARD PARK, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

SANFORD A. CHURCH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ALBION.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs. 

Memorandum: Petitioner father filed a petition alleging that

respondent mother violated an order of custody and visitation, and he

also filed two petitions seeking modification of that order. On

appeal, the father contends that Family Court improperly dismissed his

modification petitions. Inasmuch as the order on appeal dismissed

only the violation petition, the father’s contention concerning the

modification petitions is not properly before us (see Matter of Price

v Jenkins, 99 AD3d 915, 915; Matter of Nicole Lee B., 256 AD2d 1103,

1105). We reject the father’s further contention that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel based solely upon counsel’s request to

withdraw from representing him, which was denied (see Matter of Gee v

Brothers, 267 AD2d 786, 788, lv denied 94 NY2d 764).

Entered: October 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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



I, Michael Silton, Chief Executive Officer of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael Silton     
|Michael Silton         
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 18, 2004