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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

** OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Consolidation Services, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard S. Polep, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  June 4, 2012

/s/ Richard S. Polep

 

By:  Richard S. Polep

 

Its:  Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Consolidation Services, Inc. and will be retained by Consolidation Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             557
<SECURITIES>                                     4,190
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,045
<PP&E>                                       1,271,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,227,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,504
<BONDS>                                        360,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    271,012
<COMMON>                                        38,608
<OTHER-SE>                                     489,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,227,212
<SALES>                                         96,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,421
<CGS>                                           25,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 36,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.23


 


PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.


 


PROMISSORY NOTE 


 


This PROMISSORY NOTE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is
made as of the 15th day of August, 2004 by and among PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and F. James McCarl (“Mr. McCarl”.)


 


THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:


 


1.   PROMISSORY
NOTE.


 


Mr. McCarl agrees to
contribute as debt under the terms of this Promissory Note the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for a period of six (6) months.  This Promissory Note shall accrue interest
at a rate of six percent per annum (6%) which shall be added to the principal
investment amount at the end of the term.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Thomas A. Szabo

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Thomas A. Szabo

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  F. James McCarl

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ F. James McCarl

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  F. James McCarl

  	
   

  
						



 


1
Exhibit 32.2

                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 Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, CFO,  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.

Date: February 13, 2006                            Signature: /s/ James L. Busby
                                                             -------------------
                                                             James L. Busby, CFO
J-A10018-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

S.B.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

J.E.B.-S.

Appellee No. 2037 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered November 4, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County

Civil Division at No(s): 09-20, 268

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY MUNDY, J.: FILED APRIL 01, 2015

Appellant, S.B.B. (Mother), appeals pro se from the November 4, 2014 

order, granting Appellee, J.E.B.-S. (Father)’s motion for attorney’s fees in 

the amount of $4,651.50.1 After careful review, we dismiss this appeal.

Generally, appellate briefs are required to conform to the Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See Pa.R.A.P. 2101. “This Court may ... dismiss an 

appeal if the appellant fails to conform to the requirements set forth in the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 

1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 489 (Pa. 

____________________________________________

1 This Court has held that orders awarding attorney’s fees for vexatious, 

obdurate, or dilatory conduct are final and appealable. Kulp v. Hrivnak, 

765 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa. Super. 2000).
J-A10018-15

- 2 -

2011). Generally, this Court will construe pro se materials liberally, but “pro 

se status confers no special benefit on an appellant.” Id. at 1211-1212.

In this case, Mother purports to raise 23 issues on appeal. Mother’s 

Brief at 4-5. However, the bulk of Mother’s argument consists of 

reproducing various transcripts and court filings verbatim without discussing 

how they fit into any of the 23 issues Mother’s presents on appeal. See 

generally id. at 9-35. We note that Mother has included one paragraph 

which contains some citations to various statutes in the Adoption Act but, 

this paragraph contains nothing more than one-sentence conclusions, 

without any development or explanation as to why the trial court erred. See 

id. at 21. It is axiomatic that this Court will not consider issues where the 

appellant has not developed her issue in any meaningful way. In re Estate 

of Whitley, 50 A.3d 203, 209 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 

303 (Pa. 2013). Furthermore, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will 

not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. 

Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted), appeal 

denied, 29 A.3d 796 (Pa. 2011).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude the defects in Mother’s brief are 

substantial and preclude this Court from conducting any meaningful 

appellate review. Accordingly, we elect to exercise our discretion pursuant 

to Rule 2101 and dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
J-A10018-15

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/1/2015
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 et al., Respondents, and Village of Johnson City, Appellant. (And Another Proceeding.)

Submitted February 14, 2011;

decided February 17, 2011

Motion by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
656 S.E.2d 443

#### Michael Ray FERGUSON, Jr., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0748-06-3.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 12, 2008.

Present: FELTON, C.J., ELDER, FRANK, HUMPHREYS, CLEMENTS, KELSEY, McCLANAHAN, HALEY, PETTY, BEALES and MILLETTE, JJ.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing En Banc

On January 9, 2008 came the appellee, by the Attorney General of Virginia, and filed a petition requesting that the Court set aside the judgment rendered herein on December 27, 2007, and grant a rehearing *en banc*thereof.

*276On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing *en banc*is granted, the mandate entered herein on December 27, 2007 is stayed pending the decision of the Court *en banc,*and the appeal is reinstated on the docket of this Court.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 5A:35, the following briefing schedule hereby is established: Appellant shall file an opening brief upon rehearing *en banc*within 21 days of the date of entry of this order; appellee shall file an appellee’s brief upon rehearing *en banc*within 14 days of the date on which the opening brief is filed; and appellant may file a reply brief upon rehearing *en banc*within 14 days of the date on which the appellee’s brief is filed. The appellant shall attach as an addendum to the opening brief upon rehearing *en banc*a copy of the opinion previously rendered by the Court in this matter. It is further ordered that the appellee shall file twelve additional copies of the appendix previously filed in this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 899 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 899

 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the 
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests, Montana, to 
Jefferson County and Sanders County, Montana, for use as cemeteries and 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 2005

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land in the 
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests, Montana, to 
Jefferson County and Sanders County, Montana, for use as cemeteries and 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Montana Cemetery Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO JEFFERSON COUNTY AND SANDERS COUNTY, MONTANA.

    (a) Conveyance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act and subject to valid existing rights, the 
Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as the 
``Secretary''), acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, shall 
convey to Jefferson County, Montana, the Elkhorn Cemetery and to 
Sanders County, Montana, the Noxon Cemetery, for no consideration, all 
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcels 
of land as described in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Land.--The parcels of land referred to in 
subsection (a) are the parcels of National Forest System land 
(including any improvements on the land) known as--
            (1) the Elkhorn Cemetery, which consists of 10 acres in 
        Jefferson County located in SW1/4 Sec. 14, T. 6 N., R. 3 W.; 
        and
            (2) the Noxon Cemetery, which consists of 3.4 acres in 
        Sanders County located in SE1/4, Sec. 24, T. 26 N., R. 33 W.
    (c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require 
such additional terms and conditions for the conveyance under 
subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 
interests of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Christopher Shapard, Appellant, v Anthony Zon, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 5, 2009;

decided November 24, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1661.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### In re L.H., L.H.

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(21 August 2007)

No. 455P07

Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA07-496)

Denied 11/08/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,162
<PP&E>                                          19,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,923
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           655
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,465
<SALES>                                         21,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,290
<CGS>                                           16,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,759)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,203)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,556)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.58)     
        

</TABLE>
#### BERESLAVSKY v. SOCONY-VACUUM OIL CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Sept. 19, 1946.

See also 7 F.R.D. 445.

Pennie, Edmonds, Morton & Barrows, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Herbert C. Smyth, Jr., New York City, for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

This is a patent infringement suit seeking injunctive relief and an accounting for profits and damages.

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend its complaint by striking allegations relating to equitable relief and substituting allegations seeking money damages. The basis for the motion appears to be that the patent has expired and with it the plaintiff’s right to injunctive relief. The only claim he now has, says the plaintiff, is for money damages arising out of defendant’s infringement.

 The defendant questions the necessity of this amendment. This objection is not altogether without merit. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c, which have done away with procedural distinctions between law and equity (Grauman v. City Company of New York (D.C., 31 F.Supp. 172, 173), it would appear that the amendment sought is unnecessary since the request for injunctive relief could be abandoned at trial and the issue of damages tried by the court. However, I can see no harm in granting the amendment which leaves the complaint as it was in every respect except for the elimination of the request for injunctive relief.

Two other objections urged by the defendant require little discussion. It is claimed that the sole purpose of the amendment is to obtain a jury trial, a right which plaintiff has long ago waived. This question is not before me and is purely anticipatory. It is further claimed that the action if allowed to remain in its original form would entitle defendant to an award of counsel fees if it ultimately prevailed in the suit. Whether this is so or not, I am not at all persuaded that this is a valid objection to an application to amend a pleading.

All the objections are overruled and the motion to amend is granted. Settle order on 2 days notice.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of 
our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statements File Nos. 33-64878, 33-89820, 33-99946, 333-03928, 
333-66849, 333-28361, 333-48961 and 333-66849 on Form S8 and 333-00358, 
333-49667, 333-19301, 333-43611, 333-36703, 333-32571, 333-28647, 333-27763, 
333-26381, 333-49667, 333-58929, 333-65891, 333-69825 and 333-72609 on Form 
S-3.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 30, 1999
---

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 Annual Report of Uroplasty, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012, as amended by the Amendment thereto on Form 10-K-A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David B. Kaysen, President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.





January 31, 2013





By
/s/ David B. KaysenDavid B. KaysenPresident and Chief Executive Officer










Exhibit 32.2




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 Annual Report of Uroplasty, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012 as amended by the Amendment thereto on Form 10-K-A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mahedi A. Jiwani, 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 result of operations of the Company.





January 31, 2013





By
/s/ Mahedi A. JiwaniMahedi A. JiwaniVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNCLASSIFIED

Updating Citrix Workspace (Home User Only)

1. On the bottom right of the task bar, 

select the carat to expand the list of 

application icons.

2. Right Mouse Click on the Citrix 

Workspace Icon from your home 

desktop

3. Select Check for Updates

4. After checking for updates, verify the 

current version of the application

5. Right Mouse Click on the Citrix 

Workspace Icon and select Advance 

Preferences
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Updating Citrix Workspace (Home User Only)

6. On the Advanced Preferences screen, verify the version installed listed under the “About” section. The 

current version must be (2006) or newer to utilize Remote Access
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RUBA KUMAR SELVARAJ,

Appellant,

v.

CELINE SHAKILA SELVARAJ,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-591

[February 22, 2018]

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Timothy L. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

FMCE13-014877 (42).

Gene Reibman, Plantation, for appellant.

Catherine L. Roselli, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Andre Dolberry, Also Known as Andre Duberry, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

Decided June 29, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### State v. Locklear

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 732

No. 430P06

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-509)

Allowed 08/17/06
[920 NE2d 90, 891 NYS2d 686]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christian Tabb, Appellant.

Decided November 24, 2009

*853APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc.,*Buffalo *{Robert B. Hallborg, Jr., David C. Schopp*and *Barbara J. Davies*of counsel), for appellant.

*Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney,*Buffalo *{Raymond C. Herman*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court that asked for direction on, or an explanation of, “the legal definition of self defense.” Nothing in the record indicates that the court informed defense counsel and the prosecutor about the contents of the note. In the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal *(see e.g. People v Kisoon, 8*NY3d 129, 135 [2007]; *People v O’Rama,*78 NY2d 270, 277 [1991]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.