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


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2009




In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that:




·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.








Date:  August
      4, 2009
            /s/  Paul
      A. FarrPaul
      A. Farr
              Executive
      Vice President
              PPL
      Energy Supply, LLC






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
11818.

#### Griner *et al. v.*Smith, administrator.

Decided February 15, 1921.

Action on bond; from city court of Nashville — Judge *W.*E. Smith. July 30, 1930.

*~W. D.*Buie, for plaintiffs in error. *B. A.*Hendriclcs, contra.

Hill, J.

1. In “ bail-trover ” a deputy sheriff in whose hands the process has been placed for execution is bound either to seize the property sued for or to arrest the defendant and imprison him until the property is produced or a bond is given for its forthcoming. Where he fails, without good excuse, to perform either one of these statutory requirements, he is liable for the eventual condemnation money recovered in the trover suit; and when sued on his official bond by the plaintiff in the trover suit he can not successfully defend by showing that he made personal service on the defendant or took a bond from the defendant to attend court, or that he did not arrest the defendant or require him to give a forthcoming bond because the property sued for was not in the defendant’s possession and he could not produce it. Civil Code (1910), § 5151; *Snell*v. *Mayo,*62 *Ga.*744; *DeLongchamp*v. *Hicks,*25 *Ga.*200.

2. A deputy sheriff can be ruled or suit be brought on his official bond without making the sheriff a party. Civil Code (1910), § 4920; *Varner*v. *Wooten,*38 *Ga.*575.

3. It being manifest that the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been discovered before the trial, by the exercise of ordinary diligence either by the movant or his counsel, there was no error in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based on such evidence.

4. The verdict was demanded by the evidence and no error of law appears.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eonour.*
HEB-2015.06.30-EX 10.1 Armada








ARMADA 
Health Care 




July 29, 2015 


Dr. William A. Carter Chairman and CEO 
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. JFK Boulevard 
Suite 500
Philadelphia, Pa 19103 




Re: Agreement Between Armada Health Care, LLC and Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. 


Dear Dr. Carter, 
Armada Health Care would like to request an extension to the above mentioned contracts, initially signed on August 15, 2011 and extended in 2012, 2013 and 2014 subject to the same terms and conditions currently in place. 
Please sign this acceptance letter as acknowledgment of the extension through August 14, 2017 and return to my attention via fax or e-mail. I can be reached at 973-564-8004 if you have any questions or concerns. 


Regards, 


/S/: Ryan Oligino                   
Ryan Oligino 
Vice President 
Armada Health Care


Phone: 973-564-8004 
Fax: 973-564-8010


                                        /S/: William A. Carter    _______________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (signature)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
William A. Carter____________________
(print name)


CEO and Chairman___________________
(Title)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 _7/31/15____________________________
(Date)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-30261

 

BARBARA GASPARD; DONNA DUGAS, individually and on behalf of Baily

Dugas; KELLY DUGAS, individually and on behalf of Baily Dugas;

MARK DUGAS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO; ET AL

 Defendants,

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO; SEARS ROEBUCK & CO; 

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP, formerly known as 

Schindler Haughton Elevator Corp,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

Case No. 6:03-CV-1313

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has carefully reviewed this appeal in light of

the briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent parts of the record.

Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact and

therefore AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the trial

court.
2

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2279 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2279

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Rural Business--Cooperative Service, Intermediary 
          Relending Program Fund Account for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Rural Business--Cooperative Service, Intermediary 
          Relending Program Fund Account for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, RURAL BUSINESS--COOPERATIVE SERVICE, 
              INTERMEDIARY RELENDING PROGRAM FUND ACCOUNT FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Rural Business--Cooperative Service, Intermediary 
Relending Program Fund Account for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$18,889,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Dale Robertson, Also Known as William Grant, Petitioner, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 779]

— The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, and a cross motion having been made on behalf of respondent to dismiss the petition, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied, the cross motion granted, and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Concur — Andrias, J.P, Acosta, Saxe and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of PolydexPharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) do hereby certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10–Q ofthe Company for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Company as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

 

4.             The Company’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a–14 and 15d–14) for the Company and wehave:

 

(a)           designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report was beingprepared;

 

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The Company’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Company’s board of directors:

 

(a)           all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

1

----

 

Dated: September 14, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ George G. Usher             |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |                            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                            |
|   | Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited |

 

2

----
#### Echostar Satellite L.L.C., Appellant, v ESPN, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 471]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered November 18, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 16, 2011, which denied plaintiffs *421motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied the motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of juror misconduct. Although the court did not authorize the jurors to take notes during trial, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had suffered any prejudice resulting from one juror’s preparation of notes at home and use of those notes during deliberations *(see Alford v Sventek,*53 NY2d 743, 745 [1981]). Indeed, plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit from any juror regarding the effect of the notes. Although plaintiff’s counsel’s affirmation stated that other jurors indicated that one juror had used her notes during deliberations, the jurors did not indicate that the notes had swayed the jury’s decision. The court properly denied plaintiffs request for a hearing to assess the effect, if any, the notes had on the deliberations. Such a hearing should “not be undertaken except in extraordinary circumstances” (Peo*ple v Rodriguez,*71 NY2d 214, 218 n 1 [1988]), which are not present here.

Plaintiffs claim that the court erred in delivering a confusing response to a jury question is unpreserved *(see*CPLR 4110-b; *Martinez v Te,*75 AD3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2010]), and we decline to review it in the interests of justice. Were we to review it, we would reject it. By reading the instructions previously given to the jury on the issue, the court conveyed the germane legal principles to be applied in the case *(see e.g. Mercy Community Hosp. v Cannon Design,*235 AD2d 405, 405-406 [2d Dept 1997]). Moreover, plaintiff made no showing that the jury was substantially confused by the court’s response, especially since the jury made no further requests for clarification after the court had answered the question *(see Martinez,*75 AD3d at 7).

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
11302.

#### Shearer *v.*Stamey.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Rehearing denied February 15, 1921.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. November 29, 1919.

*B. G. Buchanan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sill & Adams,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. Where a case has been dismissed upon the defendant’s motion, on a ground not going to the merits of the case, the dismissal will not, in a subsequent suit between the parties, support a plea of res judicata filed by the defendant. This rule is applicable in a “bailtrover ” proceeding where the former suit was dismissed on motion of the defendant upon the ground that the affidavit attached to the petition was defective. Civil Code (1910), § 5679; *Papworth*v. *City of Fitzgerald,*111 *Ga.*54 (36 S. E. 311).

2. The judge of the municipal court having properly stricken the defendant’s plea of res judicata, and the judgment rendered for the plaintiff being supported by the evidence, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affwmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
##### 



---

---

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report
(date of earliest event reported)

April 5, 2004

NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION




(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    not applicable(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission
    
    (IRS Employerof incorporation)
    
    File Number)
    
    Identification No.)


8200 Dixie Road, Suite 100, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    
    L6T 5P6(address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)


Registrants telephone number, including area code (905) 863-0000.



---

---





---



##### 



Item 5.     Other Events

On April 5, 2004, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated in its entirety by
reference herein.

Item 7.     Financial
Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

(c)     Exhibits.

99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on April 5, 2004.






---



##### 



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

NORTEL
    
    NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/   William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:
    
    /s/   Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant Secretary


Dated:   April 5, 2004





---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX

99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on April 5, 2004.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1964 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1964

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
 Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
 Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION AND HEALTH 
              PROMOTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Chronic 
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $932,821,000.
                                 <all>
```
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, Peter L. Preston, Chief Executive and Financial Officer
of Bach-Hauser, Inc. (the "Company"), certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.



Date:  April 9, 2004            By:  /s/ Peter L. Preston
                                Chief Executive and Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended. 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michelle O’Brien, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 219]

Rose, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered May 11, 2012, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In August 2011, defendant, whose criminal history includes prior misdemeanor and felony driving while intoxicated convictions, waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging her with the class D felony of driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to that charge and waived her right to appeal with the understanding that, if she successfully completed substance abuse treatment, she would be sentenced to five years of probation. Defendant was advised at that time, however, that if her treatment was unsuccessful, County Court *1029would impose a term of incarceration with no commitment as to the sentence. Defendant was thereafter given several opportunities to complete treatment, but failed to comply. In March 2012, the court, with defendant’s consent, sentenced her to one year of interim probation, which included, among other things, the agreement that, if defendant’s treatment were successful, she would be sentenced to probation with one year of credit and, if she again failed to comply, she would receive a prison sentence. Shortly thereafter, defendant violated the terms of her interim probation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison, to be followed by a consecutive sentence of five years of probation with the requirement that she comply with the ignition interlock program. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, contrary to defendant’s argument, County Court’s imposition of a period of interim probation prior to her sentencing was authorized by CPL 390.30 (6) (a), and defendant’s reliance on *People v Rodney E.*(77 NY2d 672, 674 [1991]), decided prior to the enactment of this statutory provision, is inapposite. Additionally, the court was required to consider defendant’s violation of the interim probation conditions in determining the appropriate sentence *(see e.g. People v French,*72 AD3d 1397, 1397-1398 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 804 [2010]; *People v Saucier,*69 AD3d 1125, 1125-1126 [2010]). Finally, we disagree with defendant’s contention that it was error for the court to impose a sentence of probation to run consecutively to her prison sentence. Upon defendant’s conviction pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2), the court was required to sentence defendant to a consecutive period of probation or conditional discharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.21, which specifically states that it applies “notwithstanding” Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d) *(see People v Panek,*104 AD3d 1201, 1201-1202 [2013]; *see also People v Kidd,*105 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1005 [2013]; *compare People v Flagg,*107 AD3d 1613 [2013]).

Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.