alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3


                            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 on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I,
Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 operation of
          the Company.





                    /s/ Elise Nissen
             ----------------------------
                       Elise Nissen
                Chief Financial Officer
                       May 14, 2003


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


                                       20
Exhibit
      10.1

     

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO

    STOCK
      PURCHASE & SALE AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Amendment No. 1 to Stock Purchase & Sale Agreement (this "Amendment")
      is
      made and entered into effective as of June 8, 2007 by and between Chiral Quest
      Acquisition Inc. (“Buyer”),
      and
      VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Seller”),
      relating to the sale by Seller and purchase by Buyer of all of the outstanding
      shares of capital stock of Chiral Quest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation
      (“Company”).
      

    


    WHEREAS,
      Buyer
      and Seller have entered into that certain Stock Purchase & Sale Agreement,
      dated April 10, 2007 (the “Agreement”)
      related to the purchase of all outstanding equity shares of the Company; and
      

    


    WHEREAS,
      Buyer
      and Seller desire to postpone the latest date on which the Closing of the
      transaction contemplated by the Agreement has to occur before the parties are
      entitled to terminate the Agreement.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      in
      consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this
      Amendment, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
      sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree
      as
      follows:

    


    1.
       The
      first
      paragraph of Section 3 of the Agreement shall be restated as
      follows:

    


    “The
      Closing (“Closing”)
      shall
      take place at the offices of Seller located at 180 Mount Airy Road, Suite 102,
      Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 commencing at 11:00 a.m., local time, on a date not
      later than July 9, 2007 (the “Last
      Closing Date”),
      or at
      such other time, date and place as may be mutually agreed upon in writing by
      the
      parties hereto (the "Closing
      Date").
      All
      proceedings to take place at the Closing shall take place simultaneously, and
      no
      delivery shall be considered to have been made until all such proceedings have
      been completed. The Closing shall be deemed to have taken place at 11:59 p.m.,
      local time, on the Closing Date.” 

    


    2. All
      other
      provisions of the Agreement remain unaffected. 

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this
      Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              VioQuest
                Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/
              Daniel E. Greenleaf
	 	
              

            
	 	
              Daniel
                E. Greenleaf

              President
                & Chief Executive
                Officer

            


    

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              Chiral
                Quest Acquisition Corp.

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/
              Xumu
              Zhang
	 	
              

            
	 	
              Xumu
                Zhang

              Its:
                President
#### Gold Coast Advantage, Ltd., Appellant, v Tushar Trivedi et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[963 NYS2d 235]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered March 26, 2012, which, after a bench trial, granted defendants’ motion for judgment pursuant to CPLR 4401 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet its burden of showing that there was a meeting of the minds as to the terms of a joint venture, or even that a joint venture was contemplated *(see Matter of Steinbeck v Gerosa,*4 NY2d 302, 317-318 [1958], *appeal dismissed*358 US 39 [1958]). Indeed, the record is filled with lengthy, handwritten, sometimes illegible documents by Donald Ferrarini, who had no authority to bind plaintiff to any contract. Moreover, the documents were written by Donald from his prison cell and thus had to be based only on his recall, as he was not allowed to give or receive documents from visitors. The record contains multiple versions of what plaintiff asserts to be the alleged joint venture agreement (also handwritten), yet not one of these documents is signed by both parties. As found by the trial court, the various versions of the agreements are oddly numbered, sometimes missing pages, and missing clauses plaintiff asserts were both material and agreed upon. Further, as also found by the trial court, the testimony of plaintiffs witnesses, who were all self-interested and sometimes gave patently unbelievable testimony, did not tend to cure the deficiencies in the documentary evidence.

The same failures that prevent plaintiff from showing an express contract prevent it from showing an implied contract *(see Brennan Beer Gorman/Architects, LLP v Cappelli Enters., Inc.,*85 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2011]).

*572We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
#### Adventure Trails, Inc., Appellant, v Leading the Way Tours, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 6, 2009;

decided June 9, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismissing the appeal to that Court, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; *Eaton v State of New York,*76 NY2d 824 [1990]).
Dated:  March 28, 2008                                                                       By: /s/          Bryan Calder                                                           Title:PresidentI, Bryan Calder, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of J.P. MORGAN ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-A1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and 5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.Bryan Calder**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**(Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function of the Master Servicer)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:U.S. Bank National AssociationAssurant Inc., as VendorChase Home Finance LLC, as ServicerCountrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as ServicerFifth Third Mortgage Company, as ServicerGreenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as ServicerJP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Servicer and CustodianLandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as VendorPHH Mortgage Corporation, as ServicerThe Bank of New York, as CustodianWells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., as Servicer
LaSalle Bank
      N.A.135 South LaSalle StreetSuite 1625Chicago, IL 60603Global Securities and Trust
  Services






















Annual Statement of Compliance




VIA:
EMAIL




Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250
Vesey Street


4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor


New
York, New York 10080




Home Loan Services,
Inc.


150
Allegheny Center Mall


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212




Re:
      First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust


Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-FF2






Reference is made
to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of February
1, 2007, among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Home Loan
Services, Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee,
relating to First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2007-FF2




I, Barbara L.
Marik, a Senior Vice President of LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee
hereby certify that:




(1) A review of
the activities of the Trustee during the preceding calendar year and of the
performance of the Trustee under the Agreement has been made under my
supervision; and




(2) To the best of
my knowledge, based on such review, the Trustee has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or
a portion thereof.






Date: February
27, 2008




LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee






/s/ Barbara L. Marik


Barbara
L. Marik


Senior
Vice President
National Mall

West Building

Galleries 18-21, 52-71 closed for renovations

Main Floor
A130
47-2800

13th- to 16th-Century Italian
Paintings and Sculptures
46th-Century Italian, French, and
Spanish Paintings, Sculptures,
and Decorative Arts

17th- to 18th-Century Italian,
Spanish, and French Paintings

35-35A,
38-410

15th- to 16th-Century
Netherlandish and German
Paintings and Sculptures
17th-Century Dutch and Flemish
Paintings

18th- and 19th-Century Spanish
and French Paintings

East Building

Modern and
Contemporary Art

18th- and Early 19th-Century
French Paintings and Sculptures.

57-59, 61 British Paintings and Sculptures Special Exhibitions
eal American Paintings and Sculptures HE) 200f Terrace

Public Space
(802939) 19th-Century French Paintings HEE Closed to the Public
72-79 Special Exhibitions

Upper Level

°
Mezzanine
oe has 7 » EN
(G4=69/624)) 19th-and20th-Century Sculptures  [SAZEIGRAM special Exhibitions = ~
and Paintings 642-643. Ainerican Decorative = ‘
G11-G13A 17th- and 18th-Century Sculptures, Arts and Paintings. Ground Level.
Decorative Arts, and Paintings Public Space ~ f
G10, 614-19 = Medieval, Renaissance, (EEN) «Closed to the Public
and Baroque Sculptures
and Decorative Arts
Espresso &
Gelato Bar /
eae ~
Cascade ~
Facilities @ Café :
O wen @ information @® Elevator lease do nst tolieh works of art
(#) Women & Listening device Gg Escalator Dirt, moisture, and other contaminants
. @ hs a 7 present on hands can stain or corrode
@ Single stall Braille transcripts e Moving walkway the surfaces. Help us protect the works
(6) Lactation room ($] ATM 6 Stairs of art and preserve our common heritage
for future generations. Concourse

(3) Changing room
@ checkroom

@ accessible

@ Water fountain

® Dining

=m Exterior entrance

pedal 3,

Ground Floor
Concourse

Ground Level
[904 NE2d 832, 876 NYS2d 696]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Harris, Appellant.

Decided February 19, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(William A. Loeb*of counsel), for appellant.

*742
      *Robert M. Morgenthau, District*Attorney, New York City *(Richard Nahas*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed *(see People v Guerrero,*12 NY3d 45 [2009] [decided today]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro PRADO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41516

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alvaro Prado-Ortiz (Prado) appeals the sentence he received for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Prado argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing each of his prior state felony convictions for possession of controlled substances as “aggravated felonies” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Prado’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. *See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Prado argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with *Jerome v. United States, 318*U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded *Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome*is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” *See United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

Prado also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Prado’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Prado argues that *AlmendarezTorres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Prado properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Haile’s request for publication is denied. 

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TSEGAI HAILE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

 Defendant - Appellee,

 and

ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM

SONOMA COUNTY,

 Defendant.

No. 10-15904

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04149-MMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JUL 25 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15904

Tsegai Haile appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a

bench and jury trial in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). We review

for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. 

Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007) (Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(a)); Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.

2006) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Haile’s

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) claim because

Haile failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Santa Rosa

Memorial Hospital complied with COBRA’s notification provision. See 29 U.S.C.

§§ 1163 (defining “qualifying event”), 1166(a) (setting forth notice requirements). 

We cannot review Haile’s contentions that require examination of oral

proceedings in the district court because Haile failed to include the relevant

transcripts in the record on appeal as required by Fed. R. App. P. 10(b). See

Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)

(pro se appellant failed to provide relevant transcripts).
3 10-15904

To the extent that consideration of the district court’s denial of Haile’s

motion for a new trial does not require review of a transcript, the district court did

not abuse its discretion because Haile failed to show grounds warranting such

relief. See Molski, 481 F.3d at 729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under

Rule 59(a)); Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1101-02 (plaintiff was not entitled to relief from

judgment under Rule 60(b) on the basis of her attorney’s alleged misconduct).

Haile’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Haile’s “Motion to Augment Opening Brief and Rebuttal to J. Chesney’s

Argument” is granted to the extent that it seeks to supplement the opening brief

and is otherwise denied. Haile’s remaining pending motions, including his

requests for sanctions, are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1999-C1, by and through Orix Capital Markets, LLC, as Master Servicer and Special Servicer, Appellant, v Love Funding Corporation, Respondent.

Decided March 31, 2009

Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Continental Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009
(the “Form 10-Q”) 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 the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





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.









Dated:
October 21, 2009








/s/ Lawrence W.
Kellner


Lawrence
W. Kellner


Chairman
and


Chief
Executive Officer








/s/ Zane C.
Rowe


Zane C.
Rowe


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40060

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUGO ALONZO,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-00-CR-316-1

--------------------

August 21, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hugo Alonzo appeals his conviction following a guilty plea

to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession of a firearm after having

been previously convicted of a felony. He argues that the

factual basis of his guilty plea was insufficient to support his

conviction because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) operates

unconstitutionally where the only interstate commerce nexus is

the mere fact that the firearm possessed had a past connection to

interstate travel.
No. 01-40060

-2-

We hold that United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240 (5th Cir.

1996) is controlling, and, therefore, the district court

committed no error. 

AFFIRMED.
[914 NE2d 140, 885 NYS2d 448]

#### In the Matter of A. William Cass, Appellant, v Stephan L. Krakower, Respondent, et al., Respondents.

Argued August 25, 2009;

decided August 26, 2009

*119APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John Ciampoli,*Albany, for appellant.

*David A. Sears,*Poughkeepsie, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Election Law §§ 6-164 and 6-166 collectively require that an opportunity to ballot petition shall set forth the names of persons constituting a “committee to receive notices” and that “[a]ll required notices shall be served on the members of the committee named in the petition.” Here, petitioner, the aggrieved candidate, failed to serve or provide any notice of the present proceeding to the Committee to Receive Notices. Thus, the Appellate Division properly reversed Supreme Court’s denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss (65 AD3d 637 [2009]).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in per curiam opinion.

Order affirmed.