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 for the
period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nicholas Malden, Vice President, 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nicholas MaldenNicholas Malden Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary May 2, 2003
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of
ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: June 18, 2007



|                                             |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                       |  | 
|Paritosh K. Choksi                           |  | 
|Executive Vice President of General Partner, |  | 
|Principal Financial Officer of Registrant    |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and
will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---

Page 24 of 24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christina Dunn,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03776-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/14/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9017 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
S. 2363

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To revise and extend the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C.

13751 note) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)(2)—

(A) by striking ‘‘1,200’’ and inserting ‘‘1,500’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘5,000’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘December 31, 2005’’ and inserting

‘‘December 31, 2010’’;

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘2002, 2003, 2004,

2005, and 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,

and 2010’’; and

(B) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘1,200’’ and

inserting ‘‘1,500’’; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)—

(I) by striking ‘‘4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘5,000’’;

and

(II) by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’;

and

(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and inserting

the following:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appropriated

to carry out this section—

‘‘(A) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

‘‘(B) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

‘‘(C) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

‘‘(D) $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
S. 2363—2

‘‘(E) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
March 23, 2010








Citibank, N.A.


750 Washington Boulevard (8th Floor)


Stamford, CT 06901-3702


Attention: Gina Losito


gina.losito@citi.com





Ladies and Gentlemen:





This letter shall constitute notice pursuant to Section 2.4(a) of the Amended & Restated Omnibus Credit Agreement, dated as of January 29, 2010 (as amended by Amendment No.1 dated as of February 11, 2010, and as the same may be further amended, supplemented, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Agreement”), by and among (i) The Student Loan Corporation, as borrower, (ii) Citibank, N.A., as lender, (iii) Citibank, N.A., not in its individual capacity but solely in its separate capacity as the Trustee under the Trust Agreement referred to in the Agreement, solely for purposes of the sections of the Agreement specified therein, and (iv) the Non-Securitization Subsidiaries that become parties to the Agreement from time to time pursuant to Joinder Agreements, that the Commitment with respect to Private Loan Funding shall be reduced to $3,000,000,000 effective as of  March 24, 2010.




Capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the meanings set forth or incorporated by reference in the Agreement.






THE STUDENT LOAN CORPORATIONBy:
/s/ Joseph P. GuageName: Joseph P. GuageTitle:  Chief Financial Officer








cc:           Citibank, N.A.


750 Washington Boulevard (8th Floor)


Stamford, CT 06901-3702


Attention: Bob Kohl


robert.kohl@citi.com





Citibank, N.A.


750 Washington Boulevard (8th Floor)


Stamford, CT 06901-3702


Attention: Madelyn Arroyo


madelyn.arroyo@citi.com





Citibank, N.A.


388 Greenwich Street, 14th Floor


New York, NY 10013


Attention: SLC Trust – Credit Agreement
#### City of Peekskill, Appellant, v Timothy Schurr, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 308]

In an action for a judgment declaring that title to a certain parcel of real property automatically reverted to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant’s failure to comply with a provision in the deed, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered March 10, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, City of Peekskill (hereinafter the City), conveyed a parcel of real property to the defendant. According to the deed, the defendant was required to bring the buildings on the premises into compliance with all local and state codes, regulations, and standards within nine months after the date of conveyance, and to cure any outstanding violations within 90 days after a City inspection revealed any such violations. If the defendant did not comply with these conditions, the deed stated that the property would “revert automatically to the City.” It is undisputed that the defendant failed to so comply. Based upon this evidence the City met its burden as a movant for summary *644judgment *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Shukovsky v Clavin,*163 AD2d 919 [1990]).

However, the defendant then met his burden of demonstrating the existence of triable issues of fact, including whether the City waived enforcement of the automatic title reverter provision *(see Board of Mgrs. of Dickerson Pond Condominium I v Jagwani,*250 AD2d 717 [1998]; *Pacamor Bearings v British Am. Dev. Corp.,*108 AD2d 191 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the City’s motion for summary judgment. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher C. Jurey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (a) | 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. and will be retained by Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By

/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
JUREYChristopher C. Jurey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: November 10, 2003
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nikki Welch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nikki-d-welchnasa-gov\/","title":"University Students Test Futuristic Flight Hardware in NASA Facility","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4t5kfYPOJE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/university-students-test-futuristic-flight-hardware-in-nasa-facility\/\">University Students Test Futuristic Flight Hardware in NASA Facility<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/university-students-test-futuristic-flight-hardware-in-nasa-facility\/embed\/#?secret=4t5kfYPOJE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“University Students Test Futuristic Flight Hardware in NASA Facility” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4t5kfYPOJE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/grc-2022-c-10244-trio_-_copy.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Olim,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03960-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Wilshire Law Firm

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/1/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8910 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Elizaville & Fairview T. P. R. Co. *v.*Rowland T. Carr.

Turnpike — Subscription to Capital Stock — Special Covenant — Construction of Agreement — Substantial Compliance.

The vagueness of the contract as to the particular line, the length of the road to be built, together with the difficulty of a literal compliance with the contract, locating the road on the line, and other circumstances tending to explain the intention of the parties, requires a liberal construction of the agreement.

It seems that the company substantially performed the conditions upon which the subscription was made.

APPEAL FROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

September 19, 1866.

Opinion of the Gourt by

Judge Hardin :

This was a suit in equity to recover of the appellee the sum of $100, which, by a special covenant, be bad undertaken to pay as stock in tbe Elizaville & Fairview Turnpike Road Company *229provided the road should run on the marked line of John Hurst and himself; and upon a further condition that the same shall not be paid till the old road passing there, the land of Carr, should be closed.

*Cord, for appellant.*

*Wadsworth, for appellee.*

The defendant resisted payment on the alleged ground that the plaintiffs had failed to perform the first condition in the contract by locating and constructing the road on the line of himself and Hurst, and the court below having dismissed the plaintiff’s petition they have appealed to this court.

The vagueness of the contract as to the particular line of Hurst and the appellee, and length of road to be built thereon, together with the manifest difficulty of a strict literal compliance with the contract in locating the road upon the line at all points, and other circumstances tending to explain the intention and objects of the parties, seem to us to require a liberal construction of the agreement. A portion of the road was located and the line indicated, and its deviation from it at other points on account of natural obstacles on the line may be presumed to have been contemplated by the appellee when making the contract. A controlling object of Carr in making the subscription appears to have been the closing of the old road consequent on the completion of the turnpike, and this being done through the agency of the company he promptly availed himself of its benefits. Under all the circumstances it seems to us that the company substantially performed the conditions upon which the subscription was made, and that the court, therefore, erred in dismissing this petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to render judgment for the plaintiffs in the actions in conformity with this opinion.
#### F. M. Hughes *v.*Jacob Leiber.

Wills — Estate in Fee Simple.

A will conveying an estate to a wife “and the heirs of her body,” constructively imports a fee simple title in her, and a purchaser from her will hold a fee simple interest indefeasable by her issue.

APPEAL FROM OLDHAM! CIRCUIT COURT.

October 16, 1868.

*DeHaven, for appellant.*

Carroll, *for appellee.*

Opinion- of the Oourt by

Judge Eobertson :

Bulware’s will and the conveyance by Price to Mrs. Griffith, and “.the heirs of her body,” pursuant to that will, constructively import a fee simple title in her. And consequently the purchaser of her title will hold a fee simple interest indefeasable by her issue.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"B200 King Air Mission Support and Research Aircraft","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dV5BykzQq8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/b200-king-air\/\">B200 King Air Mission Support and Research Aircraft<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/b200-king-air\/embed\/#?secret=dV5BykzQq8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“B200 King Air Mission Support and Research Aircraft” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dV5BykzQq8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/ed12-0345-09.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":384}
#### STATE v. BAKER

No. 562A01

Case below: 146 N.C. App. 110

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 8 November 2001. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.