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

** **

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

 

In conditionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the“Company”) for the fiscal quater ended April 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, SharonL. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By                       | /s/  Sharon L. Wardlaw |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| Sharon L.  Wardlaw,      |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| June 14,  2004           |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1.       AM Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation

2.       AMC Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
         subsidiary of AM Broadband Services, Inc.

3.       AM Nex-Link Communications, Inc. (formerly known as Nex-Link
         Acquisition Corp.), a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
         subsidiary of AM Broadband Services, Inc.

4.       SRS Communications Corporation, - a Connecticut corporation and a
         wholly-owned subsidiary of AM Broadband Services, Inc.

5.       AM Training Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
         subsidiary of AM Broadband Services, Inc. (formed in August 2002, has
         not yet commenced operations)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that 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/
                  Geoffrey
                  P. Talbot**Geoffrey
                P. Talbot****Chief
                Financial Officer****November
                14, 2008**





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 Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32(e)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
  2004

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"),
  I, the principal executive 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: May 7, 2004 | /s/ John F. SipicsJohn F. Sipics
        President 
        PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
|----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-91-00374- CV
Rickey D. Wr ight and Rick’s F loor Store , Inc., Appellan ts
v. John C. (Jack) Rose, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 146 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 130 ,430 -B , H ONO RAB LE RICK MO RRIS, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This Court abate d this appea l in 1993 afte r rec eiving notice of a rela ted bankruptc y . See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1, 8.2. After the abate ment, no party to this appea l soug ht reinstateme nt. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. We have now been informed that the bankruptc y case rela ted to this appea l is closed a nd, there fore , have r einstated the a ppeal. On October 25, 2016, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to the parties that this appea l would be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution unless a status repor t was fi l ed o n o r befor e November 4, 2016, that provided rea son to reta in this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). To date, no response has bee n filed. Ac cording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of prosec ution.__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices F ield, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Apr il 7, 2017

2
#### In the Matter of Jasmine G., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[828 NYS2d 108]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Turbow, J.), dated November 21, 2005, which, upon a fact-finding determination of the same court, dated May 12, 2005, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant had committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal possession of a weapon the fourth degree, and which constituted unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under the age of 16, and after a dispositional hearing, adjudicated her to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding determination dated May 12, 2005.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding determination *(see Matter of Darnell C.,*305 AD2d 405, 406 [2003]; *Matter of Dennis G.,*294 AD2d 501 [2002]). Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the testimony of the police officer, which the Family Court credited, constituted legally sufficient evidence to satisfy the element of possession which was common to both crimes charged *(cf.*Penal Law § 265.01 [1]; § 265.05).

We note that during the course of the dispositional hearing the Family Court, sua sponte, entered an order directing the New York City Department of Probation (hereinafter the Department) to produce and provide to counsel for all parties certain materials relating to its “probation assessment tool” (hereinafter PAT). The Department appealed from the order, and in a decision and order on motion dated August 31, 2005, we granted the Department’s motion to stay enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal. While that appeal was pending, the Family Court completed the dispositional hearing and entered the instant order of disposition without the appellant having been provided with the materials relating to the PAT.

We ultimately determined in *Matter of Jasmine G.*(35 AD3d *607604 [2006] [decided herewith]) that the appellant should have been provided with the materials relating to the PAT. However, it is clear from our review of those materials that, under the particular circumstances of the appellant’s case, any error in failing to provide her with the materials was harmless. It is, therefore, not necessary to remit the matter to the Family Court for a new determination following the provision to the appellant of the materials relating to the PAT. Florio, J.P, Adams, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


<PAGE>




                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection  with the Annual Report of Biocurex,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  Dr. Ricardo Moro, the Principal  Executive
Officer  and Gladys  Chan,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their 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 the Company.


Date:  March 31, 2011               By:/s/ Ricardo Moro
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Dr. Ricardo Moro - Principal Executive
                                                          Officer

Date:  March 31, 2011               By:/s/ Gladys Chan
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Gladys Chan - Principal Financial Officer
<PAGE>
Order entered February 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01528-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

CASEY BENSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-10017-Q

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this 

appeal within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jon Phillip RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51172.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory Keith Simmons, Killeen, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Jon Phillip Ramos on appeal from the revocation of his term of supervised release has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as is required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ramos has not responded to counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-89053) pertaining to the 1996 Non-Employee Director Stock
Option Plan, the 1996 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan, the 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Plan of E-Stamp Corporation, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-31902) pertaining to the 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Plan of E-Stamp Corporation, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42566) pertaining to the Infinity
Logistics Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 20,
2001, with respect to the financial statements of E-Stamp Corporation included
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
August 9, 2001
#### In the Matter of: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Debtor. Robert C. Konop, Appellant, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, Appellee.

No. 08-17696.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 27, 2010.

Robert C. Konop, Playa Del Rey, CA, pro se.

David P. Simonds, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer *&*Feld LLP, John L. Jones, II, Esquire, Lim, Ruger & Kim, Sidney P. Levinson, Esquire, Joshua M. Mester, Hennigan Bennett *&*Dorman, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Lisa G. Becker-man, Esquire, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, James H. Millar, Esquire, Judith R. Thoyer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, Nicholas C. Dreher, Esquire, Theodore D.C. Young, Esquire, Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright, Lindsay N. McAneeley, Tom Edward Roesser, Esquire, Carlsmith Ball Wichman Case *&*Ichiki, Honolulu, HI, Jonathan B. Hill, Esquire, Dow Lohnes PLLC, Washington, DC, Garry Cedric Pritchard, Esquire, Emil Ford *&*Co., Sydney, AU, for Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop’s motion to have oral argument held in Pasadena, California, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from a bankruptcy court order, because Konop did not file an opening brief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal for non-compliance with non-jurisdictional bankruptcy rules. *See Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons),*920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1990). We vacate the district court’s order dismissing Konop’s appeal, and remand the case for further proceedings.

The district court’s order of dismissal did not discuss all of the relevant factors for determining whether Konop demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to file a timely opening brief, including danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the impact of the delay on the proceedings, and whether Konop acted in good faith. *See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick*As*socs. Ltd.,*507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (listing factors that court should explicitly consider in analyzing excusable neglect). Because it is unclear from the record whether the district court properly analyzed excusable neglect, we remand for further proceedings. *See Lemoge v. United States,*587 F.3d 1188, 1192-93 (9th Cir.2009) (remanding where district court failed to identify or *263properly conduct the relevant analysis in determining whether a party demonstrated excusable neglect).

We deny both parties’ requests for judicial notice.

We deny Konop’s motion for panel assignment.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
NUMBER 13-15-00089-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ROBERTO SAVEDRA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 24th District Court 

of Jackson County, Texas.

 

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria 

Order Per Curiam

We ABATE the appeal and REMAND the case to the trial court where the judge 

of the 24th District Court of Jackson County is hereby ordered to conduct a hearing in 

accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.22, section 6, to 

determine the voluntariness of any statement or confession made by appellant and 

which was introduced into evidence at trial. The hearing shall be conducted within thirty
2

days of the issuance of this order, or the district court shall inform this Court within thirty 

days of the issuance of this order of the hearing date. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 38.22, § 6 (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 R.S.); Douglas v. State, 900 S.W.2d 

760, 762 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1995, pet. ref’d) (recognizing that a trial court’s 

failure to make specific factual findings regarding voluntariness of defendant’s 

confession required abatement of defendant’s appeal and remand for evidentiary 

hearing on voluntariness issue). It is further ordered that the judge of the 24th District 

Court thereafter: (1) prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance 

with article 38.22, section 6 of the code of criminal procedure; (2) cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk’s record, (3) cause the hearing to be transcribed and 

included in a supplemental reporter’s record; (4) and forward the supplemental records 

to the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 38.22, § 6.

Upon receipt of the supplemental record, this cause will be reinstated and 

resubmitted for further consideration by the Court upon the original briefs filed by the 

parties, unless prior permission for supplementation of the same is requested and 

granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 1st

day of September, 2015.
|   | · | 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:  May                3, 2007 | /s/  David                G.                DeCampli                                    |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | David                G. DeCampliPresident                PPL                Electric Utilities Corporation                                                                                                                                                                       |
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-75232) of Learn2 Corporation and the related prospectus, the
Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-60520) and the related prospectus, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-89053) pertaining to the 1996
Non-Employee Director Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option and Restricted Stock
Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-310902) pertaining to the 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Plan, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-42566) pertaining to the Infinity Logistics Corporation 1998
Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67750)
pertaining to the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Stock Plan and
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-70106) pertaining to the 1999 Stock
Plan, of our report dated February 20, 2001, (except for the second paragraph of
Note 1, as to which the date is April 20, 2001) with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Learn2 Corporation for each of the two years ended
December 31, 2000 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 26, 2002
#### Richard F. Braun, Respondent, v Sid’s 2nd Avenue Bike Shop, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[870 NYS2d 791]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered March 21, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (2) for a change of venue from New York County to Kings County, unanimously modified, on the facts, and venue transferred to Westchester County, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured in Orange County allegedly because of a defective, custom-made bicycle he had purchased from defendants. Plaintiff, an active Justice of the Supreme Court, New York County, commenced the instant action in New York County, where all parties reside. After joinder of issue, plaintiff moved to change venue to Kings County in order “to avoid even a possible appearance of impropriety.” In opposition, defendants stated that they had “no objection” to the New York County venue, but if appearances required a change of venue, then, in *530view of plaintiffs apparent city-wide personal and professional relationships with judges, the change should be to a county outside of New York City, in particular, Westchester, the closest suburban county to Manhattan and well served by trains from Manhattan. In reply, plaintiff stated that he too had “no objection” to retaining tbe New York County venue, but, if appearances required a change, continued to urge Brooklyn as more convenient than Westchester. Under all of the circumstances presented herein, we agree with defendants that the transfer of this matter to Westchester County is appropriate *(see Saxe v OB/GYN Assoc.,*86 NY2d 820 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.