alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Wiggins 
|Timothy J. Wiggins     
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: May 6, 2008      

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.



29
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

QUINCY LADDEUS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1041

[June 6, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barbara R. Duffy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 19-

012016CF10A.

Kenneth D. Padowitz and Joshua E. Padowitz of Kenneth Padowitz, 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7698

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE PENALOZA RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-287, CA-01-299-1) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Penaloza Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* In addition to the claims he raised in the district court, on appeal Rodriguez alleges prosecutorial misconduct and breach of his plea agreement. Because he failed to present these claims to the district court, we decline to address them. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances). 2 PER CURIAM: Jose Penaloza Rodriguez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * United States v. Rodriguez , Nos. CR-99-287; CA01-229-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 20, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Emergency Restoration Services Corporation, Doing Business as Servpro of North Fork, et al., Appellants, v Nicole Corrado, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[970 NYS2d 806]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, conversion, and libel, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 28, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Nicole Corrado which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for conversion insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*577The plaintiffs were contractors who performed renovation and repair work at a flood-damaged residence owned by the defendant Nicole Corrado in Westhampton Beach. The plaintiffs commenced this action against Corrado, among others, alleging, inter alia, that Corrado converted certain funds paid to her by her insurer that were meant to be tendered to the plaintiffs to compensate them for work they had performed. Corrado moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, arguing, as relevant to this appeal, that since the plaintiffs were unlicensed home improvement contractors, they could not recover damages from her under any theory of recovery, including conversion of money allegedly owed to them either pursuant to contract or under the quasi-contractual theory of quantum meruit.

A contractor who is unlicensed in the municipality where the work is performed is barred from recovery in contract or under any contractual or quasi-contractual theory (see Suffolk County Code § 563-8; *J.M. Bldrs. & Assoc., Inc. v Lindner,*67 AD3d 738, 741 [2009]; *Flax v Hommel,*40 AD3d 809, 810 [2007]). Here, the plaintiffs admitted that they were unlicensed in Suffolk County at the time they undertook the work in dispute. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Corrado’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for conversion of a check she had received from her insurer, the amount of which would have been payment under an alleged contract to perform the work or payment under the quasi-contractual theory of quantum meruit for the value of work allegedly performed (see Suffolk County Code § 563-8). Dillon, J.E, Chambers, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
##### 



---

---

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549

Form 6-K

Report of Foreign Issuer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For October 6, 2003

Extendicare Inc.
(Translation of registrants name into English)

3000 Steeles Avenue East
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 9W2(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

|               |  |               
|-------------- |  | --------------
|Form 20-F
   o |  | Form 40-F    þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the
information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

|         |  |        
|-------- |  | -------
|Yes
   o |  | No    þ

If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):
82-



---

---





---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX

|        |  |                                    |  | 
|------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | 
|Exhibit |  |                                    |  | 
|Number  |  | Description of Exhibit            
|        |  |                                   
|99.1    |  | News Release dated October 6, 2003





---



##### 



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, thereunto duly authorized.

|                      |                  |                                                                     
|--------------------- | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | EXTENDICARE INC.
|                      |                  |                                                                     
|                      |                  |                                                                     
|Date: October 6, 2003 | By:              | /s/ MARK W. DURISHAN                                                
|                      |                  |                                                                     
|                      |                  | Mark W. Durishan
Vice-President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
#### MEI HUA FANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-5774-AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 13, 2006.

Charles Christophe, Christophe & Associates, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Present RALPH K. WINTER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Mei Hua Fang, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision affirming Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Gabriel Videla’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

When the BIA issues an opinion that fully adopts the IJ’s decision, this Court reviews the IJ’s decision. *See, e.g., Chun Gao v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.2005). This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, treating them *94as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *see, e.g., Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS,*386 F.3d 66, 73 & n. 7 (2d Cir.2004).

Although we do not find that all of the IJ’s adverse credibility factors are supported by substantial evidence, we need not remand the case because we can confidently predict that the IJ would reach the same conclusion absent the error-infected ground. *See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*434 F.3d 144, 161 (2d Cir.2006). Fang admittedly lied during her first hearing, she admittedly filed a false asylum application, and she admittedly provided a fraudulent abortion certificate in support of her claims. Under these circumstances, it was certainly reasonable for the IJ to question Fang’s veracity regarding her claims. Accordingly, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence, and as a result, the IJ reasonably denied Fang’s asylum and withholding of deportation claims.

Because Fang’s CAT claim was based on the same facts as the asylum and withholding of removal claims, the adverse credibility finding can properly “bleed over” into the CAT claim. *See Xue Hong Yang v. Gonzales,*426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir.2005).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
MIKROS SYSTEMS CORPORATION
3490 U.S. Route #1, Bldg. #5
Princeton, NJ  08540
(609) 987-1513


October 1, 1996


SEC
Division of Corporation Finance
Washington, DC  20549


RE:  FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE of the Period Ending 6/30/96



TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Purusant to your letter of September 25, 1996, please find
attached a copy of the Financial Data Schedule (EX-27) which was
previously submitted with the 10Q and 10Q-A that was filed by our
company on August 12, 16 and 30, 1996.

If you require any additional informaiton, please do not hesitate
to contact our office.


Sincerely,


/s/  Joseph R. Benek
--------------------
Joseph R. Benek
Vice President Finance

Enc.

<PAGE>

[DESCRIPTION]        Financial Data Schedule for 2nd Quarter 10-Q
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1996
[CASH]                                          48,072
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  319,500
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                    199,855
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               519,980
[PP&E]                                         684,938
[DEPRECIATION]                               (493,905)
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                 820,432
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                        1,615,554
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                           80,450
[PREFERRED]                                     28,266
[COMMON]                                        78,946
[OTHER-SE]                                 (1,308,904)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                   820,432
[SALES]                                        410,356
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               410,356
[CGS]                                          691,674
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  691,674
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                               397,796
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              47,272
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              (726,491)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                          (726,491)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                 (726,491)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                    (.10)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                    (.10)

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30429

Conference Calendar

__________________

RICHARD J. VINET,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Acting Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary;

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General,

State of Louisiana,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2576

- - - - - - - - - -

December 20, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his

confession should have been suppressed and that, if not, the

recording of the entire confession should have been played for

the jury. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion, which adopted the magistrate judge's report, and find no
No. 95-30429

-2-

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Vinet v. Whitley, No. 94-2576 (E.D. La. Apr. 18,

1995).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7254

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NIGEL CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-H-5; 4:07-cv-00020-H)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nigel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his second motion to reconsider the court’s prior order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid

v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Clarke has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Clarke’s motions for a certificate of

appealability and to remand the case, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Sharon L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer ofPolydex Pharmaceuticals 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/ Sharon L. Wardlaw           |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |                            |
|   | Chief Financial Officer         |
|   |                            |
|   | Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited |

 

2

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BYRON A. YORK, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0623-CG-M

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of

Social Security, : 

Defendant. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, the

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the

opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED for further

administrative procedures not inconsistent with the Orders of this Court.

DONE this 26th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00623-CG-M Document 20 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 1
| (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/              Anthony L. Havens                                     |   |   |        |
| Anthony                L. HavensChief                Executive Officer |   |   |        |
|                                                                   |   |   |   |
| Date:                September 19, 2007                                |   |   |        |

----
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of Triton PCS Holdings, Inc.

The subsidiaries of Triton PCS Holdings, Inc. are as follows:

Triton PCS, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Triton PCS Holdings Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton PCS License Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton PCS Equipment Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton PCS Operating Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton PCS Property Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton Management Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Triton PCS Investment Company L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

Triton PCS Finance Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation