alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Diatect International Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), We, David
Andrus, Principal Executive Officer and Robert Rudman, Principal Accounting
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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.











May
      15, 2008
            /s/ David S.
      AndrusDavid
      S. AndrusPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMay
      15, 2008
            /s/ Robert
      RudmanRobert
      RudmanPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer












---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin DUNN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11216

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Roger L. McRoberts, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender has moved for leave to withdraw from representation of Benjamin Dunn and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Dunn has not responded to counsel’s motion and brief. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### State v. Franklin

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 435

No. 538P06

Def’s Motion for Request for Discretionary Review (COA05-1538)

Denied 01/25/07
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.12

April 1, 2002

Alan Wexler
558 Boulevard
Westfield, NJ 07090

This is to confirm in writing the agreement we have reached in relation to
compensation and employment agreement changes.

Effective on April 1, 2002 your base pay will be increased to $250,000 and your
eligible bonus will be $75,000. If the payout of your bonus is reduced because
of company profitability constraints we will grant you restricted shares to
compensate for the difference in actual payout and the amount you would have
received if there were no company profitability constraints. The amount of
restricted shares to be issued will be determined at the time of grant. The
grant date will be the date the cash bonus would have been paid, and they will
vest ratably over a three-year period.

In addition, Sapient agrees to pay you one year of base and bonus pay if you are
terminated for any reason, other than for unethical or illegal behavior. All of
other terms of your employment agreement would remain in effect.

Sincerely,

/s/ Susan D. Johnson
Susan D. Johnson
Chief Financial Officer
Supreme Court of Florida

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2023

In Re: Amendment to Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280

SC2021-0929

The Court has considered the comments concerning Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280, which was amended in the opinion 

issued August 26, 2021. As no further amendments to the rule are 

warranted at this time, this case is hereby final.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, 

and SASSO, JJ., concur.

LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion.

LABARGA, J., dissenting.

In 2021, despite the robust discovery framework set forth in 

the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the majority concluded that 

there was a need for additional protections against abusive 

discovery tactics in the private sector. To that end, the majority 

unilaterally adopted new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h), 

which extended the “apex doctrine” to the private sector and 

granted special discovery protections to top-level corporate decision 

makers. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.280, 324 So. 

3d 459 (Fla. 2021).
CASE NO.: SC2021-0929

Page Two

I dissented to the majority’s unilateral action because the 

existing Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were adequate to address 

the majority’s concerns about abusive discovery tactics—and the 

rules remain adequate to do so. Id. at 464-65 (Labarga, J., 

dissenting). As such, I continue to deem the adoption of rule 

1.280(h) unwarranted.

I respectfully dissent to today’s order because the majority, 

having considered the comments filed in response to the adoption of 

rule 1.280(h), has determined that the rule should remain as 

originally adopted.

A True Copy

Test:

SC2021-0929 11/2/2023

SC2021-0929 11/2/2023

SO

Served:

JOSHUA E. DOYLE

HEATHER S. TELFER

JENNIFER MARIE VOSS

CHRISTOPHER J. BAUM
CASE NO.: SC2021-0929

Page Three

JUDSON LEE COHEN

WILLIAM W. LARGE

HON. ASHLEY MOODY

FRANK CRUZ-ALVAREZ

ROBERT L. CHRISTIE

HENRY C. WHITAKER

KANSAS R. GOODEN

DANIEL B. ROGERS

DANIEL W. BELL

CHRISTOPHER G. BURNS

JOHN W. HOGAN
#### In the Matter of Tayseer Razik et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of State Division of Licensing Services, Respondent.

Submitted March 26, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
EX-35.1
(logo)CWCapital Asset Management


March 12, 2008

CERTIFICATE ADMINISTRATOR:
Wells Fargo Bank
National Association
9062 Old Annapolis Rd
Columbia., MD 21045-1951
Attn: Corporate Trust Services, MLCFC 2007-5

DEPOSITOR:
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
c/o Global Commercial Real Estate
4 World Financial Center 16th Floor
250 Vesey Street
New York, New York 10080
Attn: David M. Rogers

MASTER SERVICER:
KeyCorp Real Estate Capital Markets, Inc.
911 Main Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
Attn: Bryan Nitcher

Wells Fargo Bank
National Association
45 Fremont Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: Commercial Mortgage Servicing

Copy:
KeyBank National Association
127 Public Square
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Attn: Robert C. Bowes

Copy:
Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus PC
700 W. 74th Street Suite 1000
Kansas City, Missouri 64112
Attn: Kraig Kohring

Copy:
Robert Darlin, Esq
Wells Fargo Bank
National Association
633 Folsom Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

RATING AGENCIES:
Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Attn: Tracey Ferguson

CONTROLLING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE:
Cadim TACH, Inc.
c/o CDP Capital Real Estate Advisors
CDP Capital Center
1000 Jean-Paul-Rjopelle Place Suite A-300
Montreal, Quebec H2Z 2B6, Canada

RE: MLCFC 2007-5, Officer's Certificate








701 13th Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC  20005
www.cwcapital.com


(page)


Dear Representatives:

In accordance with the requirements detailed in Section 3.13 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement ("Agreement") for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, CWCapital
Asset Management LLC ("CWCAM"), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is
providing this Officer's Certificate with respect to the following:

   (A)  a review of CWCAM's activities during the period 3/14/2007-12/31/2007
        and of CWCAM's performance under this Agreement has been made under my
        supervision; and
   (B)  to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled
        all its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects
        throughout the period noted above.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
CWCapital Asset Management LLC


/s/ David B. Iannarone
David B. Iannarone
Managing Director
#### Reddick & Webster *v.*Hutchinson.

Where the owner of land puts another in possession thereof under a parol contract to allow the latter to purchase it at a given price and pay for it in annual installments, but on condition that if he was not able to pay for the land he should pay as rent for the same each year he occupied it ten per cent, of the price agreed upon and the taxes on the land, and the occupant of the land failed for two years to make any payment to the owner, either as purchase money or as rent, the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as to the second year’s occupation, and a distress warrant sued out by the landlord for the rent due ■ under the contract for that year had, as to the tenant’s crop of *676that year, priority over a general judgment of older date against the tenant.

August 14, 1894.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Jenkins. Putuam superior court. September term, 1898.

S. T. Wingeield, for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### In the Matter of Joan Davis, Appellant, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Respondents.

[871 NYS2d 86]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered June 30, 2008, which denied the petition and *419dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously vacated, and the proceeding treated as if it had been transferred to this Court for de novo review pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), and, upon such review, the determination of respondent Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), dated November 28, 2007, terminating petitioner’s housing subsidy on the ground that she failed to include her minor son’s disability payments, inter alia, in her 2004 application for an enhanced subsidy and her 2006 recertification application, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the penalty, and the matter remanded to HPD for the imposition of a lesser penalty, and the proceeding otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of respondent’s determination, without costs.

HPD’s finding that petitioner intentionally failed to disclose her son’s SSI benefits is supported by substantial evidence and has a rational basis in the record *(see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg,*47 NY2d 354, 358 [1979]). The penalty of termination of the rent subsidy is shockingly disproportionate to the offense, however, since it will likely lead to homelessness for petitioner, a 25-year tenant, and the three minor children who live with her, one of whom is disabled *(see Matter of Sanders v Franco,*269 AD2d 118 [2000]; *Matter of Spand v Franco,*242 AD2d 210 [1997], *lv denied*92 NY2d 802 [1998]). We note further that petitioner’s omission of her son’s income had no effect on the amount of rent subsidy she received.

While we do not condone petitioner’s apparent misrepresentation and recognize that repeated such misrepresentations may warrant termination even absent harm to the agency, we remand to HPD to determine an appropriate lesser penalty *(see Matter of Milton v Christian,*99 AD2d 984, 986 [1984]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
exv10w19



 





Exhibit 10.19




[comScore, Inc. letterhead]




June 4, 2007




VIA HAND DELIVERY




11465 SH I, LC

11465 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 620

Reston, VA 20190

Attn: Christopher Clemente, Managing Member





			
	               Re:	 	Lease Agreement dated June 23, 2003 by and between comScore
Networks, Inc. (now comScore, Inc.) (“comScore”), as Tenant, and 11465 SH I,
LC, f/k/a Comstock Partners, L.C. (“Comstock”), as Landlord, as amended by the
First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated February 3, 2005 and the Second
Amendment to Lease Agreement dated April 26, 2007 (as amended, the “Lease”)
with respect to premises located at 11465 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 200, Reston,
Virginia





Dear Mr. Clemente:




     Pursuant to our earlier discussions, this will confirm that, notwithstanding the referenced
entity name changes and any scrivener’s errors which may exist, 11465 SH I, LC, the Landlord under
the Lease, is the holder of the three warrants issued “to our landlord,” as identified in the
amended registration statement filed by comScore with the Securities Exchange Commission.



     In light of comScore’s pending initial public offering, comScore would like to amend the Lease
to delete certain obligations of comScore therein to deliver to Comstock certain financial and
other information. Accordingly, by executing this letter agreement, Comstock agrees that,
effective immediately prior to the closing of an underwritten initial public offering pursuant to
an effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, covering the
offer and sale of comScore’s common stock, the following provisions shall be deleted from the Lease
and shall have no full force and effect: (i) the definitions of “Tenant’s Financial Reports” and
“Tenant’s Board Reports” in Section 1(b) of the Lease and any obligations under the Lease to
deliver the documents and materials described in such definitions and (ii) Exhibit J to the Lease
(Form of Financial Statement Certification) and any obligations under the Lease to deliver such
certification.



 









 





11465 SH I, LC

June 4, 2007

Page 2




     Please acknowledge Comstock’s agreement to the foregoing by executing this letter agreement in
the space provided below and returning the same to my attention. Please do not hesitate to contact
me at (703) 438-2111 with any questions.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



COMSCORE, INC.,

a Delaware corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Christiana Lin
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Christiana Lin 	 
	 	 	Title:  	General Counsel 	 
	 



ACCEPTED AND AGREED:




11465 SH I, LC,

a Virginia limited liability company




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Christopher Clemente 

Name: Christopher Clemente
	 	 
	 

	 	Title: Managing Member	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	June 6, 2007
 
	 	 







			
	cc:	 	Mr. Marc Bettius

Cohen, Gettings, & Caulkins

2200 Wilson Blvd.

Arlington, VA 22201


The Rockcrest Group

14800 Conference Center Drive, Suite 201

Chantilly, VA 22151-3180
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (FormsS-8 No. 333-144906 & 333-148972) of WABCO Holdings Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WABCO Holding Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of WABCO Holdings Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

Ernst & Young BedrijfsrevisorenBCVBA/Réviseurs d’Entreprises SCCRL 

Represented by: 

/s/ Daniel J.Van Cutsem, Partner 

Brussels, Belgium 

March 12, 2008
#### Broyles *et al. v.*Buck, Clerk.1

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Georgia.*

December 29, 1888.)

1. Costs—In Federal Court—Attorney's Fee eor Depositions.

Under section 824, Rev. St. U. S., the prevailing party is entitled to collect for his attorney a fee of S2.50 for the deposition of each witness “taken and admitted in evidence, ” to be taxed as costs, especially where the witnesses are examined and answer separately.

2. Same.

Such fees are allowed to the partyas compensation for his attorney's services in and about the depositions, and are to be taxed in addition to the fees of commissioners to take the testimony.

3. Same— Collection.

The attorney’s costs, like those of the clerk and marshal, are to be collected in the name of the prevailing party.

Buie on Clerk to Tax Costs.

*Malcolm Johnston,*for movants.

*Bacon & Rutherford*and *P. L. Mynatt,*for railway company.

1

 Reported by Will Haight, *Esq., ol*the Atlanta bar.

*138Newman, J.

This is a rule against the clerk in the case of the *East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company*v. *Watters.*The question presented .is, whether, under section 824, Rev. St. U. S., the clerk, in taxing costs for attorney’s fees, in favor of the prevailing party to a suit Should tax $2.50 for the deposition taken and admitted in evidence of each witness, where the testimony of more than one witness is returned to'court in one inclosure. The attorneys for Watters, the prevailing-party, say that the testimony of each witness is “a deposition” in the meaning of the statute, especially where, as'in this case, the testimony of ea'ch witness is taken separately. This view seems to be correct. It is- difficult to see how any other interpretation can be given the language, “for each deposition taken,” etc.

'- It is suggested by counsel for the railway company that the expense to it of haying the commissions executed, and taking the testimony, should be deducted from the sum to be taxed as attorney’s fees for depositions. As I understand this statute, the fee of $2.50 “for each deposition taken and admitted in evidence in a cause” goes to the prevailing party for his attorney, and the expense of commissioners to take the testimony has no' connection with it.

■This rule was brought by Watters’ attorneys, but, it being conceded oii the héaring that properly it should have been brought in the name of Watters, the defendant in the case, it was allowed to proceed informally, nevertheless, to determine the question made. It is ordered, therefore, that'the clerk tax in the bill of costs in this case $2.50 for the depositions of each witness taken and admitted in evidence.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4065 

To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the feasibility of 

collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related crime 

in elementary schools and secondary schools. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the 

feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and 

secondary schools. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Accurate Crime Trends 

5 for Schools Act’’ or the ‘‘ACT for Schools Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The Attorney General shall, after con8 sultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of InVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:32 Nov 20, 2006 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4065.IS S4065

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 4065 IS

1 vestigation and the International Association of Chiefs of 

2 Police, conduct a study to determine the feasibility of ex3 panding the National Incident-Based Reporting System to 

4 include information on the occurrence of school-related 

5 crime in elementary schools and secondary schools. Such 

6 study shall include the identification and evaluation of 

7 methods that may be used to collect and report such infor8 mation. 

9 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after the date 

10 of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall sub11 mit a report containing the results of the study conducted 

12 under subsection (a) to the appropriate committees of 

13 Congress. 

14 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘ele15 mentary school’’ and ‘‘secondary school’’ have the mean16 ings given the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary 

17 and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). 

18 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

19 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

20 section 2, $250,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
#### Community Network Service, Inc., Appellant, v Verizon New York, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted August 24, 2009;

decided October 20, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 547.

*814Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Gerald Salustri, Appellant-Respondent, v Ahearn Holtz-man, Inc., Doing Business as Seaboard Weatherproofing, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Ahearn Holtzman, Inc., Doing Business as Seaboard Weatherproofing, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, v R.J. Bruno Roofing, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 913]

Cross appeals from an order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 9, 2007, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2578** 

MICHAEL A. SCOTT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH; KENNETH W. STOLLE; PAUL J. LANTEIGNE; F. V. WILLIAMS; SYLVESTER WILLIAMS; JOHN NEWTON; CASSANDRA LEE; STEVE WILKE; J. MANIGO; JOHN DOE; MARC F. SCHUSTER; VICTORIA THOMSON , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:1 0

- cv - 00 625

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : April 19, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Michael A Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Beverly, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Virginia Beach , Virginia ; David Brandt Oakley, POOLE MAHONEY PC, Chesapeake, Virginia , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael A. Scott appeals the district court orders and judgment grantin g the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, denying his motion to amend the complaint and denying
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Scott v. City of Virginia Beach , N o. 2:10

- cv - 00625

- RAJ

DEM (E.D. Va., Sept. 29, 2011; April 4, 2012; Nov. 27, 2012). 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
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, (the "Report"), I
David Vozick, Co-Chief Executive 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 operations of the Company.









____________/s/_____________
David Vozick,
Chairman of the Board
Co-Principal Executive Officer
November 13, 2003



                                       17