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



EXHIBIT 32.2(b)

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 report of Inco Limited on
Form 10-Q/ A (Amendment No. 1) to the Quarterly Report
of Inco Limited (the registrant) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this
Form 10-Q, as amended by Amendment No. 1, the
report), I, Farokh S. Hakimi, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, of the registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| |     |                                                                                                                                                                
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements
    of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and                      
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the registrant.

Dated: August 10, 2004

| |                       
| | ----------------------
| | /s/ FAROKH S. HAKIMI  
| |                       
| | Name: Farokh S. Hakimi

| |        |                             
| | ------ | ----------------------------
| | Title: | Executive Vice President and

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 and is not being
filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosure document.

26
#### In the Matter of Diane Word, Appellant, v Barbara G. Zambelli, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Decided May 7, 2009

*843Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 15, 2014

No. 04-14-00703-CR

Charlotte A. LEAL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR5724

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant is attempting to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress signed on 

October 8, 2014. It appears, however, from the documents before the Court that the case has not yet 

proceeded to trial and judgment. 

As a general rule, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal 

defendant only after a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 

S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); 

McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). An intermediate 

appellate court has no jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders absent express authority. Ex parte

Apolinar, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589. An order 

denying a motion to suppress is not an interlocutory order that an intermediate appellate court has 

express authority to consider. See Wright, 969 S.W.2d at 589 (noting types of appealable 

interlocutory orders); Brandon v. State, No. 05–10–01040–CR, 2010 WL 3529528, *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Sept. 13, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Therefore, Appellant is ORDERED to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction within twenty days from the date of this order. 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the jurisdictional

issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 15th day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Rodriguez, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 119]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered May 19, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]; CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Martinez,*289 AD2d 259 [2001]; *People v Torres,*150 AD2d 816 [1989]). Contrary to the defendant’s position, the People proved he was not acting as the agent or mere extension of the buyer *(see People v Roche,*45 NY2d 78, 81 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 958 [1978]; *People v Matos,*123 AD2d 330, 331 [1986]). The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant displayed an independent interest and his behavior “purposefully affected or furthered the sale of the controlled substance” *(People v Martinez,*289 AD2d at 259 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Roche,*45 NY2d at 81; *People v Torres,*150 AD2d at 816).

Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the *879weight of the evidence (see *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.E, Dillon, McCarthy and Eng, JJ., concur.
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of June, 2005 Commission File Number: 00-30082 Envoy Communications Group Inc. 
 
 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F þ                      Form 40-F o Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes o                      No þ If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with
Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-    Signatures Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Envoy Communications Group Inc.
(Registrant)By:
    /s/   Geoffrey B. GenoveseName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    President, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Dated:   July 8, 2005




---



##### 



Exhibit Index Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Material Change Report
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Auditor**

The Board of Directors of Boise Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-158737 and 333-150563) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (Nos.333-157881 and 333-155595) on Form S-3 of Boise Inc. of our report dated February 23, 2009, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, capital, and cash flows of Boise Paper Products for the period from January 1, 2008 throughFebruary 21, 2008, and for the year ended December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Boise Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boise, Idaho 

February 25, 2010
#### In the Matter of Tommy Alejandro, an Attorney, Appellant. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Respondent.

Decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 63.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000319237
<NAME>                        THE CERPLEX GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-25-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                  81
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        7,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (748)
<INVENTORY>                                          5,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,501
<PP&E>                                              24,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (15,420)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      33,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               23,029
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               30,869
<PREFERRED>                                         60,695
<COMMON>                                             2,270
<OTHER-SE>                                        (115,314)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        33,292
<SALES>                                             14,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14,145
<CGS>                                               13,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (4,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (26)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (4,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (4,436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.79)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22806-22807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds--Termination and 
Merger: Surety Company of the Pacific

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 12 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2006 Revision, published June 30, 2008, at 73 FR 37644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificate 
of Authority issued by the Treasury to Surety Company of the Pacific 
(NAIC<greek-i> 12793) under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as acceptable 
surety on Federal bonds has been terminated. The above-named company 
merged with and into American Contractors Indemnity Company 
(NAIC<greek-i> 10216) effective March 2, 2009. The surviving 
corporation of the merger activity is American Contractors Indemnity 
Company (NAIC<greek-i> 10216), a California domiciled corporation. 
Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies 
of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2008 Revision, 
to reflect this change.
    In the event bond-approving officers have questions relating to 
bonds issued by the Surety Company of the Pacific (NAIC<greek-i> 12793) 
that has merged with and into American Contractors Indemnity Company 
(NAIC<greek-i> 10216), they should contact American Contractors 
Indemnity Company at (310) 649-0990.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.


[[Page 22807]]


    Dated: April 28, 2009.
Rose M. Miller,
Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11252 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
- 1 -

State of New York

Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 63 SSM 8

In the Matter of Jamael Bursch,

 Appellant,

 v.

Purchase College of the State 

University of New York, et al.,

 Respondents.

Submitted by Peter E. Brill, for appellant.

Submitted by Seth M. Rokosky, for respondents.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be reversed, 

with costs, and the petition insofar as it sought to annul respondents’ disciplinary 

determination granted and the matter remitted to the Appellate Division with directions to 
- 2 - SSM No. 8

- 2 -

remand to respondents for a new disciplinary hearing. Petitioner, a student enrolled at 

respondent Purchase College of the State University of New York, was accused of multiple 

disciplinary violations including sexual assault of another student. Petitioner requested a 

three-hour adjournment of his scheduled administrative hearing so that his attorney could 

attend the proceeding. Respondents denied this request. Under the particular 

circumstances of this case, we find respondents abused their discretion as a matter of law

by failing to grant the requested adjournment (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann, 85 

NY2d 113, 124 [1995]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments need not be reached and any 

other contentions raised below have been abandoned.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order insofar as appealed 

from reversed, with costs, and petition insofar as it sought to annul respondents’ 

disciplinary determination granted and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second 

Department, with directions to remand to respondents for a new disciplinary hearing, in a 

memorandum. Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur. Chief

Judge DiFiore took no part.

Decided June 6, 2019
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30567 

Conference Calendar

 

KIM POWELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DARYL DUPLESSIE, Court Reporter,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-3867

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louisiana prisoner Kim Powell, #111068, appeals from the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to state a

claim. Powell contends that his constitutional rights were

violated when the state-court court reporter did not provide him

with a requested state-court transcript within a reasonable time.

Determination whether Powell was prejudiced by the court

reporter’s failure would require us to examine the contentions
No. 96-30567

- 2 -

with which Powell hopes to undermine his state-court conviction. 

Success on Powell’s underlying claims would call his conviction

into question; Powell has no § 1983 cause of action on those

claims until he demonstrates that his conviction has been

invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 512, 114 S. Ct.

2364, 2372 (1994). Because Powell has no cause of action

regarding his substantive claims, he has no cause of action

regarding the delay in providing him with a transcript. 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16 UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  CP SHIPS LIMITED
 
  2 City Place, Beehive Ring Road, Gatwick, West Sussex, RH6 0PA, United Kingdom
 
   FORM 20-F   o
    
    FORM 40-F   þ
  YES   o
    
    NO   þ




---



##### 








---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   CP SHIPS LIMITEDDate:   November 17, 2005
    By:
    /s/   John M. BakerName:
    John M. BakerTitle:
    Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT NO.
    
    DESCRIPTION99.1
    
    Press Release of CP Ships Limited CP Ships and Hapag-Lloyd Announce New Weekly Australasian
Service dated November 17, 2005.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta,Principal Financial Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):


(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Dated: March 23, 2012
By:
/s/ Juhani TaskinenJuhani TaskinenChief Executive OfficerMarch 23, 2012
By:
/s/ Trupti MehtaTrupti MehtaPrincipal Financial Officer


* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21.1

|Subsidiary                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|---------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Starent do Brasil Ltda.            |  | Brazil                       
|Starent International, Corp.       |  | Delaware                     
|Starent Networks Beijing Co., Ltd. |  | China                        
|Starent Networks Canada Limited    |  | Canada                       
|Starent Networks (India) Pvt. Ltd. |  | India                        
|Starent Networks Japan, K.K.       |  | Japan                        
|Starent Networks Securities Corp.  |  | Massachusetts                
|Starent Networks Spain, S.L.       |  | Spain                        
|Starent Networks (UK) Ltd.         |  | United Kingdom               

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. OP 2 3 - 06 81 DANIEL R. WOOD ,

P etitioner , v. BRIAN GOOTKIN ,

Respondent . **ORDER** Upon consideration of Respondent’s mo tion for an extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent is granted an extension of time to and including January 29 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 21 2023

12/21/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0681
**Exhibit
      32.3**











**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, 2007 (the “Report”), I,
      Elise Nissen, 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:





(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/_Elise
      Nissen______________


Elise
      Nissen,


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      15,
      2007






26
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                        0
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      0
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  0
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### Vista Properties, LLC, Respondent, v Rockland Ear, Nose & Throat Associates, P.C., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 25, 2009

*901Motion 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.