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





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


OF
      SWISS
      MEDICA, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 USC § 1350














Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) the undersigned
      officer of Swiss Medica, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such
      officer’s knowledge, that:





|(c) | The
              quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
              of
              the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
              15(b)
              of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(d) | Information
              contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,
              the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated:
      June 15, 2007








/s/
      Raghunath Kilambi


Raghunath
      Kilambi,


Chief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,982
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,353
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,307
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,642
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,106
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,642
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,667
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,497
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.004)



</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2238 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights 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, Executive Operations, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for fiscal 

year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2238 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, EXECU3 TIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE ASSIST4 ANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Executive Oper9 ations, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

10 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $901,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
WILSON HOLMES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14-2480

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 30, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mallory D. Cooper

, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., RAY and SWANSON

, JJ., CONCUR.
#### In the Matter of Starr L. Roshia, Respondent, v Christopher J. Thiel, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[971 NYS2d 922]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered May 16, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order committed respondent to the Erie County Correctional Facility for a term of three months.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Roshia v Thiel*(110 AD3d 1490 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
     <LEGEND> This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
from the  Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended
December  31,  1999  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                    700
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          700
<PP&E>                                  5,038
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,202
<BONDS>                                   920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              1,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,017
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          130
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (282)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (282)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            (282)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (12.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (12.95)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

 

2013 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 

OF OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION

 

The 2013 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Ophthotech Corporation (the “Company”) is hereby amended as follows (all capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan):

 

1.              Section 9(c)(4) of the Plan be and hereby is deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:

 

(4)   Effect on Restricted Stock Units with Time-Based Vesting. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9(b), except to the extent specifically provided to the contrary in the instrument evidencing any Restricted Stock Unit or any other agreement between a Participant and the Company, each Restricted Stock Unit that vests solely based on the passage of time shall immediately become free from all conditions or restrictions if, on or prior to the first anniversary of the date of the consummation of the Change in Control Event, the Participant’s employment with the Company or the acquiring or succeeding corporation is terminated for Good Reason by the Participant or is terminated without Cause by the Company or the acquiring or succeeding corporation.

 

2.              Section 9(c) of the Plan be and hereby is further amended to include a new sub-paragraph (5) as follows:

 

(5)   Effect on Other Awards. The Board may specify in an Award at the time of the grant the effect of a Change in Control Event on any SAR, any Restricted Stock Unit that includes vesting criteria other than solely the passage of time and any Other Stock-Based Award.

 

3.              Except as aforesaid, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

 

* * *

 

	
 
    	
Approved   by the Board of Directors
   on June 4, 2015.
    


 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2007 Stock Incentive Plan to be signed by its Chief Executive Officer this 4th day of June, 2015.

 

	
 
    	
OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ David R. Guyer
    


 

2
Order entered June 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00745-CV

No. 05-13-00746-CV

IN RE SENRICK WILKERSON, Relator

On Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. W10-01183-J, W10-01184-J

ORDER

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of the original proceedings.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Nortel Networks Corporation, a Canadian corporation
(the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

This Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2003 ( Amendment No. 1) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 23, 2003
    
    FRANK A. DUNNFrank A. Dunn
President and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  December 23, 2003
    
    DOUGLAS C. BEATTYDouglas C. Beatty
Chief Financial Officer


87
**Exhibit 3.1.1**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**IP FACTORY, INC.**

**IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:**

**FIRST**: The name of the corporation is IP Factory, Inc. (hereinafter called the “Corporation”). 

**SECOND**: The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby further amended by striking out Article First thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Article thefollowing new Article: 

“**FIRST**: The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the“Corporation”) is Dune Energy, Inc.” 

**THIRD**: The amendment of the Amended and Restated Certificate ofIncorporation herein certified has been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with the provisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Amendment of Amended and RestatedCertificate of Incorporation of the Corporation this 7thday of May 2003.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiariesof Cherokee International Corporation**
| **Subsidiary  Name**                             | ** ** | ** **     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
| Cherokee Electronica  S.A. de C.V.               |       | Mexico         |
| Cherokee Europe SCA                              |       | Belgium        |
| Cherokee Europe SPRL                             |       | Belgium        |
| Cherokee Germany GmbH                            |       | Germany        |
| Cherokee India Pvt. Ltd.                         |       | India          |
| Cherokee International  (China) Power Supply LLC |       | China          |
| Cherokee Netherlands  B.V.                       |       | Netherlands    |
| Cherokee Netherlands I  B.V.                     |       | Netherlands    |
| Cherokee Netherlands II  B.V. 2                  |       | Netherlands    |
| Cherokee Sarl                                    |       | France         |
| Cherokee U.K.                                    |       | United Kingdom |
| Powertel India Pvt. Ltd.                         |       | India          |

 

 

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

s0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138365 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138365 

 COA: 287444 

Wayne CC: 04-005837 

DONALD EDWARD STEWART, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         876,490
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,942,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,843,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,890,510
<PP&E>                                      84,541,099
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,583,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,650,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,103,084
<BONDS>                                     11,312,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,637,162
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,598,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,650,507
<SALES>                                     20,570,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,570,905
<CGS>                                       19,608,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,608,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               340,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             348,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                436,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            427,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   427,922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,783,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,362,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,622
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,385,404
<PP&E>                                       2,965,153
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,052,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,909,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,909,121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,591
<OTHER-SE>                                     609,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,909,175
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,071,306
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,532,373
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             279,124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (968,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (973,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (973,543)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.26)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Zakari Adio, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 557]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 27, 2011, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

An undercover police officer viewed a single photograph of the defendant, who was suspected of selling controlled sub*758stances, before purchasing crack cocaine from the defendant. Shortly after the drug transaction, the officer viewed the defendant’s photograph again and confirmed to fellow officers that it depicted the drug seller.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the officer’s viewing of a single photograph of the defendant prior to purchasing crack cocaine from him did not constitute an identification *(see People v Green,*90 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2011]; *People v Diakite,*296 AD2d 655, 656 [2002]). Furthermore, the officer’s viewing of the defendant’s photograph shortly after the purchase was confirmatory *(see People v Andrews,*30 AD3d 434, 435 [2006]; *People v Soto,*22 AD3d 511 [2005]; *People v Montgomery,*213 AD2d 563 [1995]). Thus, the County Court properly found that the defendant was not subjected to impermissibly suggestive identification procedures, and properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the plea allocution are unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Guy,*95 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2012]). In any event, the plea proceeding conducted by the prosecutor in the presence of the County Court and defense counsel was not an abrogation of the court’s responsibility *(see People v Martinez,*97 AD3d 605 [2012]; *People v Bethune,*91 AD3d 966, 966-967 [2012]). Furthermore, the facts admitted by the defendant during his plea allocution were sufficient to support his plea of guilty to the crimes charged *(see People v Martinez,*97 AD3d 605 [2012]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court. Dillon, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1884

ISIDORO RODRIGUEZ, Esq.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JACK HARBESTON; SEA SEARCH ARMADA; ARMADA

COMPANY; IOTA PARTNERS; DANILO DEVIS PEREIRA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.

(CA-00-1523-A)

Submitted: November 9, 2001 Decided: November 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isidoro Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se. R. Harrison Pledger, Jr.,

Bernard G. Feord, Jr., PLEDGER & FEORD, P.L.C., McLean, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Isidoro Rodriguez appeals the district court orders dismissing

his complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We review de novo

the district court’s legal conclusions concerning personal jurisdiction. To the extent that the district court’s conclusions are

based on findings of fact, however, such findings should not be

disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Mylan Lab., Inc. v. Akzo,

N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). Rodriguez bears the burden of

showing by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction

existed. In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s findings

and legal conclusions and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Rodriguez v. Harbeston,

No. CA-00-1523-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 2000 & June 5, 2001). We deny

Rodriguez’s motion seeking certification of a question from the

Supreme Court of Virginia. 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.

AFFIRMED