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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Peter L. Donato, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: October 30, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Peter L. Donato                    
|                       |  |  |  | Peter L. Donato Chief
Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding
the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
#### Orlando Leo FERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sherwood R. McCABE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6984.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Orlando Leo Fernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Orlando Leo Fernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOHAMMED T. JAMSHED,

 Appellant,

v.

McLANE EXPRESS INC., D/B/A THE 

C.D. HARTNETT COMPANY,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00101-CV

Appeal from the

43rd District Court 

of Parker County, Texas 

(TC# CV08-1669) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, on the judgment and all 

costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM COLONIAL INDUSTRIES, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  0
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              97,286
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                         97,286
<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-BASIC>                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 33.3

[LOGO] MIDLANDLOANSERVICES

    Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria


Midland Loan Services, Inc. ("Midland"), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., is responsible for assessing compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Regulation AB") relating to its
role in the servicing of commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions.

Midland has assessed its compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007. In making this assessment, Midland
used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB. The transactions covered by this report include
commercial mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1,
2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Platform").

Based on such assessment, Midland believes that, as of and for the year ended,
Midland has complied in all material respects with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB relating to its role in the servicing of
commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions, except for servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C), and (D)), 1122(d)(3)(ii)
through (3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which Midland has determined as being
inapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions being serviced (the "applicable
servicing criteria").

Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on Midland's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007.


MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, INC.


/s/ Steven W. Smith        /s/ Vincent E. Beckett          /s/ Bradley J. Hauger
Steven W. Smith            Vincent E. Beckett              Bradley J. Hauger
President and              Executive Vice President        Senior Vice President
Chief Operating Officer    Chief Administrative Officer    Servicing Operations


Date: February 18, 2008

      A Member of the PNC Financial Services Group
      10851 Mastin  P.O. Box 25965  Shawnee Mission Kansas 66225-5965
      www.midlandls.com  913 253 9000 T  913 253 9709 F
##### 



EXHIBIT 99(b)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned, Glenn R. Richter, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (the Company), has executed this
certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 28, 2002 (the Report).

The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of November, 2002.

/s/ Glenn R.
Richter
Glenn R. Richter
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Cobb

Case below: 172 N.C. App. 172

No. 447P05

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA04-508)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Def’s Motion to Bypass COA

5. Def’s PWC to Review Order of Guilford County Superior Court

6. AG’s Motion to Deem Response Timely Filed

1. Allowed 359 N.C. 854

2. Allowed 12/19/06

3. Allowed 12/19/06

4. Allowed 12/19/06

5. Allowed 12/19/06

6. Allowed 12/19/06

Timmons-Goodson, J., Recused
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 20, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 20, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0094. LEMONTREE PROPERTIES, LLC v. JOHN SAMPLES et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

18SUCV0343
#### In the Matter of Mogid Saad, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[964 NYS2d 136]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 24, 2012, denying the petition seeking to annul respondent’s determination, dated September 21, 2011, which denied, after a hearing, petitioner’s remaining family member grievance, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CELR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the petition treated as one transferred to this Court for de novo review, and, upon such review, the determination confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

The petition raises an issue of substantial evidence and therefore the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CELR 7804 (g). Accordingly, we will “treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred” *(Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio,*180 AD2d 590, 591 [1st Dept 1992]).

The determination that petitioner does not qualify as a remaining family member is supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that petitioner was granted written permission to reside in the subject apartment with his wife in January 2007 and that petitioner’s wife passed away in August 2007. Thus, petitioner did not occupy the apartment, pursuant to the written permission of respondent, for one year prior to the death of his wife (the tenant of record) *(see Matter of Echeverria v New York City Hous. Auth.,*85 AD3d 580, 581 [1st Dept 2011]). That the determination may present a hardship for petitioner does not provide a basis to annul the determination *{see Matter of Guzman v New York City Hous. Auth.,*85 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Peter Donato, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 1, 2008 |  | /s/ Peter Donato       
|                  |  | Peter Donato           
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Intec USA, LLC v. Engle

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 355P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1358)

Denied 10/11/07
#### Boi To Go, Inc., Appellant, v Second 800 No. 2 LLC, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 334]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered June 4, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs motion for a *Yellowstone*injunction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff restaurant established its entitlement to a *Yellowstone*injunction. In addition to demonstrating that it held a commercial lease, had received a notice to cure from defendant landlord, and had requested injunctive relief prior to the expiration of the cure period, plaintiff showed that it was prepared and maintained the ability to cure the alleged default *(see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc.,*93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Although denying responsibility for the defaults set forth in defendant’s notice, i.e., that plaintiff permitted offensive odors to emanate from its establishment to other areas of the building, plaintiff has nonetheless evinced a willingness to cure any defaults, if found by the court *(see TSI W. 14, Inc. v Samson Assoc., LLC,*8 AD3d 51, 52-53 [2004]; *compare Cemco Rests, v Ten Park Ave. Tenants Corp.,*135 AD2d 461 [1987], *lv dismissed*72 NY2d 840 [1988]). Here, there has yet to be a determination that odors were indeed coming from plaintiffs establishment, or, if so, whether plaintiff was responsible for them. Accordingly, there is no basis to evaluate whether plaintiff is in violation of its lease *(see E.C. Elecs., Inc. v Amblunthorp Holding, Inc.,*38 AD3d 401 [2007]), and the application seeking injunctive relief should have been granted. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4073 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2006 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the 

‘‘Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

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

2 

S 4073 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The outpatient clinic of the De4 partment of Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Mis5 souri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert Silvey 

6 Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert Silvey Depart11 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

Passed the Senate November 16, 2006. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
- 1 - 

# United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 14-1359
CARMEN D. BURGOS-YANTÍN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.
MUNICIPALITY OF JUANA DÍAZ, et al.,

Defendants, Appellants.

**ERRATA SHEET**

The opinion of this Court, issued on November 19, 2018, is amended as follows:

From page 7, line 12, through page 8, line 2, substitute the following text, including footnotes 6 and 7:

. . . . Municipality in this case. The Municipality has never challenged the Secretary's Law 9 decision in the commonwealth courts. **[fn 6]** Although the Municipality contends that it had no means of seeking review under Puerto Rico law, the Fajardo decision itself -- the result of another municipality's challenge to a Law 9 decision -- belies that contention. **[fn 7]** Hence, "by the time . . . ."

**[fn 6]** The Municipality claims that it challenged the Secretary's decision by filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Fajardo case. This argument is meritless. The Municipality's expression of support for a legal argument asserted by a different- 2 - municipality in a different case does not preserve that argument in its own proceeding.

**[fn 7]** The municipality in Fajardo challenged the Secretary's decision by filing a declaratory judgment action pursuant to Puerto Rico Civil Procedure Rule 59.

On page 8, line 20, remove superseded footnote 7.